Cancer gene expression database (CGED): a database for gene expression profiling with accompanying clinical information of human cancer tissues

Gene expression profiling of cancer tissues is expected to contribute to our understanding of cancer biology as well as developments of new methods of diagnosis and therapy. Our collaborative efforts in Japan have been mainly focused on solid tumors such as breast, colorectal and hepatocellular cancers. The expression data are obtained by a high-throughput RT–PCR technique, and patients are recruited mainly from a single hospital. In the cancer gene expression database (CGED), the expression and clinical data are presented in a way useful for scientists interested in specific genes or biological functions. The data can be retrieved either by gene identifiers or by functional categories defined by Gene Ontology terms or the Swiss-Prot annotation. Expression patterns of multiple genes, selected by names or similarity search of the patterns, can be compared. Visual presentation of the data with sorting function enables users to easily recognize of relationships between gene expression and clinical parameters. Data for other cancers such as lung and thyroid cancers will be added in the near future. The URL of CGED is http://cged.hgc.jp

Everolimus plus exemestane in postmenopausal patients with HR(+) breast cancer: BOLERO-2 final progression-free survival analysis.

IntroductionEffective treatments for hormone-receptor-positive (HR(+)) breast cancer (BC) following relapse/progression on nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) therapy are needed. Initial Breast Cancer Trials of OraL EveROlimus-2 (BOLERO-2) trial data demonstrated that everolimus and exemestane significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus exemestane alone in this patient population.MethodsBOLERO-2 is a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, international trial comparing everolimus (10 mg/day) plus exemestane (25 mg/day) versus placebo plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR(+) advanced BC with recurrence/progression during or after NSAIs. The primary endpoint was PFS by local investigator review, and was confirmed by independent central radiology review. Overall survival, response rate, and clinical benefit rate were secondary endpoints.ResultsFinal study results with median 18-month follow-up show that median PFS remained significantly longer with everolimus plus exemestane versus placebo plus exemestane [investigator review: 7.8 versus 3.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38-0.54); log-rank P < 0.0001; central review: 11.0 versus 4.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.31-0.48); log-rank P < 0.0001] in the overall population and in all prospectively defined subgroups, including patients with visceral metastases, [corrected] and irrespective of age. The incidence and severity of adverse events were consistent with those reported at the interim analysis and in other everolimus trials.ConclusionThe addition of everolimus to exemestane markedly prolonged PFS in patients with HR(+) advanced BC with disease recurrence/progression following prior NSAIs. These results further support the use of everolimus plus exemestane in this patient population. ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00863655

Health-related quality of life from the FALCON phase III randomised trial of fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer

Background The phase III randomised FALCON trial (NCT01602380) demonstrated improved progression-free survival with fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg in endocrine therapy-naïve postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (LA/MBC). Furthermore, overall health-related quality of life (HRQoL) was maintained and comparable for fulvestrant and anastrozole. Here, we present additional analyses of patient-reported HRQoL outcomes from FALCON. Methods Women with endocrine therapy-naïve HR+ LA/MBC were randomised 1:1 to fulvestrant (days 0, 14, 28, then every 28 d) or anastrozole (daily) until disease progression or discontinuation. HRQoL was assessed by FACT-B questionnaire (TOI and FACT-B total score) at randomisation and every 12 weeks during treatment. HRQoL data post-treatment (with or without progression) were also collected. Results In total, 462 patients were randomised (fulvestrant, n = 230; anastrozole, n = 232). Compliance to FACT-B overall ranged from 60.0 to 97.4%. Mean change from baseline in TOI and FACT-B total score remained broadly stable (approximately ± 3 points to week 132) and was similar between arms during treatment. HRQoL was also maintained in FACT-B subscales. Approximately one-third of patients had improved TOI (≥+6 points) and FACT-B (≥+8 points) total scores from baseline up to week 120 and 132, respectively, of treatment with fulvestrant (ranges 26.4–45.0% and 22.4–35.8%, respectively) and anastrozole (ranges 18.6–32.9%, and 22.7–37.9%, respectively). Conclusions Mean change from baseline in TOI and FACT-B total score was maintained for fulvestrant and anastrozole; similar proportions of patients in both arms had improved TOI and FACT-B total scores

Fulvestrant 500 mg versus anastrozole 1 mg for hormone receptor-positive advanced breast cancer (FALCON): an international, randomised, double-blind, phase 3 trial

Background Aromatase inhibitors are a standard of care for hormone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer. We investigated whether the selective oestrogen receptor degrader fulvestrant could improve progression-free survival compared with anastrozole in postmenopausal patients who had not received previous endocrine therapy. Methods In this phase 3, randomised, double-blind trial, we recruited eligible patients with histologically confirmed oestrogen receptor-positive or progesterone receptor-positive, or both, locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer from 113 academic hospitals and community centres in 20 countries. Eligible patients were endocrine therapy-naive, with WHO performance status 0–2, and at least one measurable or non-measurable lesion. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) to fulvestrant (500 mg intramuscular injection; on days 0, 14, 28, then every 28 days thereafter) or anastrozole (1 mg orally daily) using a computer-generated randomisation scheme. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, determined by Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors version 1·1, intervention by surgery or radiotherapy because of disease deterioration, or death from any cause, assessed in the intention-to-treat population. Safety outcomes were assessed in all patients who received at least one dose of randomised treatment (including placebo). This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01602380. Findings Between Oct 17, 2012, and July 11, 2014, 524 patients were enrolled to this study. Of these, 462 patients were randomised (230 to receive fulvestrant and 232 to receive anastrozole). Progression-free survival was significantly longer in the fulvestrant group than in the anastrozole group (hazard ratio [HR] 0·797, 95% CI 0·637–0·999, p=0·0486). Median progression-free survival was 16·6 months (95% CI 13·83–20·99) in the fulvestrant group versus 13·8 months (11·99–16·59) in the anastrozole group. The most common adverse events were arthralgia (38 [17%] in the fulvestrant group vs 24 [10%] in the anastrozole group) and hot flushes (26 [11%] in the fulvestrant group vs 24 [10%] in the anastrozole group). 16 (7%) of 228 patients in in the fulvestrant group and 11 (5%) of 232 patients in the anastrozole group discontinued because of adverse events. Interpretation Fulvestrant has superior efficacy and is a preferred treatment option for patients with hormone receptor-positive locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who have not received previous endocrine therapy compared with a third-generation aromatase inhibitor, a standard of care for first-line treatment of these patients

Effect of visceral metastases on the efficacy and safety of everolimus in postmenopausal women with advanced breast cancer: Subgroup analysis from the BOLERO-2 study

AbstractBackgroundEverolimus (EVE; an inhibitor of mammalian target of rapamycin [mTOR]) enhances treatment options for postmenopausal women with hormone-receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative (HER2–) advanced breast cancer (ABC) who progress on a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). This is especially true for patients with visceral disease, which is associated with poor prognosis. The BOLERO-2 (Breast cancer trial of OraL EveROlimus-2) trial showed that combination treatment with EVE and exemestane (EXE) versus placebo (PBO)+EXE prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) by both investigator (7.8 versus 3.2months, respectively) and independent (11.0 versus 4.1months, respectively) central assessment in postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2– ABC recurring/progressing during/after NSAI therapy. The BOLERO-2 trial included a substantial proportion of patients with visceral metastases (56%).MethodsPrespecified exploratory subgroup analysis conducted to evaluate the efficacy and safety of EVE+EXE versus PBO+EXE in a prospectively defined subgroup of patients with visceral metastases.FindingsAt a median follow-up of 18months, EVE+EXE significantly prolonged median PFS compared with PBO+EXE both in patients with visceral metastases (N=406; 6.8 versus 2.8months) and in those without visceral metastases (N=318; 9.9 versus 4.2months). Improvements in PFS with EVE+EXE versus PBO+EXE were also observed in patients with visceral metastases regardless of Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status (ECOG PS). Patients with visceral metastases and ECOG PS 0 had a median PFS of 6.8months with EVE+EXE versus 2.8months with PBO+EXE. Among patients with visceral metastases and ECOG PS ⩾1, EVE+EXE treatment more than tripled median PFS compared with PBO+EXE (6.8 versus 1.5months).InterpretationAdding EVE to EXE markedly extended PFS by ⩾4months among patients with HR+ HER2– ABC regardless of the presence of visceral metastases.FundingNovartis

Everolimus Plus Exemestane in Postmenopausal Patients with HR+ Breast Cancer: BOLERO-2 Final Progression-Free Survival Analysis

INTRODUCTION: Effective treatments for hormone-receptor-positive (HR(+)) breast cancer (BC) following relapse/progression on nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) therapy are needed. Initial Breast Cancer Trials of OraL EveROlimus-2 (BOLERO-2) trial data demonstrated that everolimus and exemestane significantly prolonged progression-free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus exemestane alone in this patient population. METHODS: BOLERO-2 is a phase 3, double-blind, randomized, international trial comparing everolimus (10 mg/day) plus exemestane (25 mg/day) versus placebo plus exemestane in postmenopausal women with HR(+) advanced BC with recurrence/progression during or after NSAIs. The primary endpoint was PFS by local investigator review, and was confirmed by independent central radiology review. Overall survival, response rate, and clinical benefit rate were secondary endpoints. RESULTS: Final study results with median 18-month follow-up show that median PFS remained significantly longer with everolimus plus exemestane versus placebo plus exemestane [investigator review: 7.8 versus 3.2 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.45 (95% confidence interval 0.38–0.54); log-rank P < 0.0001; central review: 11.0 versus 4.1 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.38 (95% confidence interval 0.31–0.48); log-rank P < 0.0001] in the overall population and in all prospectively defined subgroups, including patients with visceral metastases, patients with recurrence during or within 12 months of completion of adjuvant therapy, and irrespective of age. The incidence and severity of adverse events were consistent with those reported at the interim analysis and in other everolimus trials. CONCLUSION: The addition of everolimus to exemestane markedly prolonged PFS in patients with HR(+) advanced BC with disease recurrence/progression following prior NSAIs. These results further support the use of everolimus plus exemestane in this patient population. ClinicalTrials.gov #NCT00863655. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-013-0060-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users