CORE
CO
nnecting
RE
positories
Services
Services overview
Explore all CORE services
Access to raw data
API
Dataset
FastSync
Content discovery
Recommender
Discovery
OAI identifiers
OAI Resolver
Managing content
Dashboard
Bespoke contracts
Consultancy services
Support us
Support us
Membership
Sponsorship
Research partnership
About
About
About us
Our mission
Team
Blog
FAQs
Contact us
Community governance
Governance
Advisory Board
Board of supporters
Research network
Innovations
Our research
Labs
Health-related quality of life with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor–positive metastatic breast cancer: Patient-reported outcomes in the PEARL study
Authors
E. Alba
A. Antón
+27 more
B. Bermejo
L. Calvo
E. Carrasco
M. Casas
E. Ciruelos
M. Corsaro
T. Csöszi
E. Gal-Yam
A. García-Palomo
M. Gil-Gil
S. González-Santiago
Haba-Rodriguez J. de la
Z. Kahan
I. Lang
M. Margeli
M. Martín
S. Morales
L. Murillo
M. Muñoz
M. Ramos
G. Rodrigálvarez
C. A. Rodríguez
M. Ruiz-Borrego
S. Servitja
C. Zielinski
I. Álvarez López
E. Álvarez
Publication date
1 January 2021
Publisher
'Elsevier BV'
Doi
Cite
Abstract
Background: The PEARL study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (palbociclib/ET) was not superior to capecitabine in improving progression-free survival in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitors, but was better tolerated. This analysis compared patient-reported outcomes. Patients and methods: The PEARL quality of life (QoL) population comprised 537 patients, 268 randomised to palbociclib/ET (exemestane or fulvestrant) and 269 to capecitabine. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires. Changes from the baseline and time to deterioration (TTD) were analysed using linear mixed-effect and stratified Cox regression models, respectively. Results: Questionnaire completion rate was high and similar between treatment arms. Significant differences were observed in the mean change in global health status (GHS)/QoL scores from the baseline to cycle 3 (2.9 for palbociclib/ET vs. -2.1 for capecitabine (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4–8.6; P = 0.007). The median TTD in GHS/QoL was 8.3 months for palbociclib/ET versus 5.3 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55–0.89; P = 0.003). Similar improvements for palbociclib/ET were also seen for other scales as physical, role, cognitive, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. No differences were observed between the treatment arms in change from the baseline in any item of the EQ-5D-L3 questionnaire as per the overall index score and visual analogue scale. Conclusion: Patients receiving palbociclib/ET experienced a significant delay in deterioration of GHS/QoL and several functional and symptom scales compared with capecitabine, providing additional evidence that palbociclib/ET is better tolerated. Trial registration number: NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov). EudraCT study number: 2013-003170-27. © 2021 The Author(s
Similar works
Full text
Open in the Core reader
Download PDF
Available Versions
Repositorio Universidad de Zaragoza
See this paper in CORE
Go to the repository landing page
Download from data provider
oai:zaguan.unizar.es:110834
Last time updated on 02/07/2022