Weight change during chemotherapy changes the prognosis in non metastatic breast cancer for the worse

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Weight change during chemotherapy is reported to be associated with a worse prognosis in breast cancer patients, both with weight gain and weight loss. However, most studies were conducted prior to the common use of anthracycline-base chemotherapy and on North American populations with a mean BMI classified as overweight. Our study was aimed to evaluate the prognostic value of weight change during anthracycline-based chemotherapy on non metastatic breast cancer (European population) with a long term follow-up.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Patients included 111 women diagnosed with early stage breast cancer and locally advanced breast cancer who have been treated by anthracycline-based chemotherapy regimen between 1976 and 1989. The relative percent weight variation (WV) between baseline and postchemotherapy treatment was calculated and categorized into either weight change (WV > 5%) or stable (WV < 5%). The median follow-up was 20.4 years [19.4 - 27.6]. Cox proportional hazard models were used to evaluate any potential association of weight change and known prognostic factors with the time to recurrence and overall survival.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Baseline BMI was 24.4 kg/m2 [17.1 - 40.5]. During chemotherapy treatment, 31% of patients presented a notable weight variation which was greater than 5% of their initial weight.</p> <p>In multivariate analyses, weight change (> 5%) was positively associated with an increased risk of both recurrence (RR 2.28; 95% CI: 1.29-4.03) and death (RR 2.11; 95% CI: 1.21-3.66).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our results suggest that weight change during breast-cancer chemotherapy treatment may be related to poorer prognosis with higher reccurence and higher mortality in comparison to women who maintained their weight.</p

Survival outcomes after neoadjuvant letrozole and palbociclib versus third generation chemotherapy for patients with high-risk oestrogen receptor-positive HER2-negative breast cancer.

Besides their development as additional adjuvant treatments, CDK4/6 inhibitors combined with endocrine therapy could represent less toxic alternatives to chemotherapy in postmenopausal women with high-risk oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer currently a candidate for chemotherapy. The multicentre, international, randomised phase 2 NEOPAL trial showed that the letrozole-palbociclib combination led to clinical and pathological responses equivalent to sequential anthracycline-taxanes chemotherapy. Secondary objectives included survival outcomes. Secondary end-points of NEOPAL included progression-free survival (PFS) and invasive-disease free survival (iDFS) in the intent-to-treat population. Exploratory end-points were overall survival (OS) and breast cancer specific survival (BCSS) in the intent-to-treat population, as well as iDFS, OS and BCSS according to the administration of chemotherapy. Hundred and six patients were randomised. Pathological complete response rates were 3.8% and 5.9%. Twenty-three of the 53 patients in the letrozole-palbociclib arm received postoperative adjuvant chemotherapy. At a median follow-up of 40.4 months [0-56.6], 11 progressions have been observed, of which three were in the letrozole-palbociclib and 8 in the control arm. PFS (HR = 1.01; [95%CI 0.36-2.90], p = 0.98) and iDFS (HR = 0.83; [95%CI 0.31-2.23], p = 0.71) did not differ between both arms. The 40 months PFS rate was 86.7% [95%CI 78.0-96.4] and 89.9% [95%CI 81.8-98.7] in letrozole-palbociclib and control arms, respectively. Outcomes of patients who did not receive chemotherapy were not statistically different from those who received it. NEOPAL suggests that a neoadjuvant letrozole-palbociclib strategy may allow sparing chemotherapy in some patients with luminal breast cancer while allowing good long-term outcomes. Larger confirmatory studies are needed

Erratum: Elacestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor degrader) Versus Standard Endocrine Therapy for Estrogen Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From the Randomized Phase III EMERALD Trial.

he October 1, 2022 article by Bidard et al entitled “Elacestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor degrader) Versus Standard Endocrine Therapy for Estrogen Receptor–Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2–Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From the Randomized Phase III EMERALD Trial” (J Clin Oncol 10.1200/JCO.22.00338) was published with errors

Elacestrant (oral selective estrogen receptor degrader) Versus Standard Endocrine Therapy for Estrogen Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Advanced Breast Cancer: Results From the Randomized Phase III EMERALD Trial.

Patients with pretreated estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer have poor prognosis. Elacestrant is a novel, oral selective ER degrader that demonstrated activity in early studies. This randomized, open-label, phase III trial enrolled patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who had one-two lines of endocrine therapy, required pretreatment with a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor, and ≤ 1 chemotherapy. Patients were randomly assigned to elacestrant 400 mg orally once daily or standard-of-care (SOC) endocrine monotherapy. Primary end points were progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review in all patients and patients with detectable mutations. Patients were randomly assigned to elacestrant (n = 239) or SOC (n = 238). mutation was detected in 47.8% of patients, and 43.4% received two prior endocrine therapies. PFS was prolonged in all patients (hazard ratio = 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.88; = .002) and patients with mutation (hazard ratio = 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.77; = .0005). Treatment-related grade 3/4 adverse events occurred in 7.2% receiving elacestrant and 3.1% receiving SOC. Treatment-related adverse events leading to treatment discontinuations were 3.4% in the elacestrant arm versus 0.9% in SOC. Nausea of any grade occurred in 35.0% receiving elacestrant and 18.8% receiving SOC (grade 3/4, 2.5% and 0.9%, respectively). Elacestrant is the first oral selective ER degrader demonstrating a significant PFS improvement versus SOC both in the overall population and in patients with mutations with manageable safety in a phase III trial for patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer