No abstract

Background In the phase III MONARCH 2 study (NCT02107703), abemaciclib plus fulvestrant significantly improved progression‐free survival (PFS) versus placebo plus fulvestrant in patients with hormone receptor‐positive (HR+), HER2‐negative advanced breast cancer (ABC). This study assessed patient‐reported pain, global health‐related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, and symptoms. Materials and Methods Abemaciclib or placebo (150 p.o. mg twice daily) plus fulvestrant (500 mg, per label) were randomly assigned (2:1). The modified Brief Pain Inventory, Short Form (mBPI‐sf); European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QoL Core 30 (QLQ‐C30); and Breast Cancer Questionnaire (QLQ‐BR23) assessed outcomes. Data were collected at baseline, cycle 2, every two cycles 3–13, thereafter at every three cycles, and 30 days postdiscontinuation. Longitudinal mixed regression and Cox proportional hazards models assessed postbaseline change and time to sustained deterioration (TTSD) by study arm. Results On‐treatment HRQoL scores were consistently maintained from baseline and similar between arms. Patients in the abemaciclib arm (n = 446) experienced a 4.9‐month delay in pain deterioration (mBPI‐sf), compared with the control arm (n = 223), and significantly greater TTSD on the mBPI‐sf and analgesic use (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.59–0.98) and QLQ‐C30 pain item (hazard ratio, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.48–0.79). TTSD for functioning and most symptoms significantly favored the abemaciclib arm, including fatigue, nausea and vomiting, and cognitive and social functioning. Only diarrhea significantly favored the control arm (hazard ratio, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.20–2.10). Conclusion HRQoL was maintained on abemaciclib plus fulvestrant. Alongside superior PFS and manageable safety profile, results support treatment with abemaciclib plus fulvestrant in a population of patients with endocrine‐resistant HR+, HER2‐negative ABC. Implications for Practice In MONARCH 2, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant demonstrated superior efficacy and a manageable safety profile for patients with in hormone receptor‐positive (HR+), HER2‐negative (−) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Impact on health‐related quality of life (HRQoL) is important to consider, given the palliative nature of ABC treatment. In this study, abemaciclib plus fulvestrant, compared with placebo plus fulvestrant, significantly delayed sustained deterioration of pain and other patient‐reported symptoms (including fatigue, nausea, vomiting), and social and cognitive functioning. Combined with demonstrated clinical benefit and tolerability, the stabilization of patient‐reported symptoms and HRQoL further supports abemaciclib plus fulvestrant as a desirable treatment option in endocrine resistant, HR+, HER2− ABC.

Background MONARCH 3, a phase III trial (NCT02246621) of postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC), previously demonstrated significantly improved progression‐free survival in patients receiving abemaciclib plus a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI). This study evaluated patient‐reported outcomes, including global health‐related quality of life (HRQoL), functioning, and symptoms. Methods Patients were randomly assigned 2:1 to receive abemaciclib (150 mg twice daily; n = 328) or placebo (n = 165), plus 1 mg anastrozole or 2.5 mg letrozole daily. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire Core 30 and Breast Cancer–Specific Quality of Life Questionnaire HRQoL instruments were administered at baseline, every two cycles during cycles 2 through 19 (each cycle being 28 days), every three cycles thereafter, and once at a short‐term posttherapy follow‐up visit (approximately 30 days after discontinuation). Longitudinal mixed regression and Cox proportional hazards models evaluated postbaseline change and time to sustained deterioration (TTSD), respectively. Results Baseline scores were similar between treatment arms. Although select scores statistically favored the placebo arm, global HRQoL, most symptoms, and functioning scales did not meet the threshold for clinically meaningful differences between treatment arms. Only diarrhea favored the placebo arm with statistically and clinically meaningful differences. There were no TTSD differences between treatment arms for global HRQoL, most symptoms (except diarrhea), or functioning. Conclusion Over a 2‐year period, there were no clinically meaningful differences in global HRQoL, functioning, and most symptoms for patients receiving abemaciclib plus NSAI compared with NSAI alone. Only diarrhea favored the placebo arm, consistent with prior safety data, which has been shown to be manageable and reversible. Combined with clinical efficacy, results support treatment with abemaciclib plus NSAI for postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2− ABC. Implications for Practice The addition of abemaciclib to a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI) was not associated with a clinically meaningful detriment in patient‐reported global health‐related quality of life, functioning, and most symptoms in postmenopausal women with hormone receptor–positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2−) advanced breast cancer (ABC). Prior studies have also demonstrated clinical efficacy of abemaciclib plus NSAI compared with NSAI alone, including improved progression‐free survival and objective response rate. These results also complement previously reported toxicity data, as measured by investigator‐assessed adverse events. Taken together, these results support treatment with abemaciclib plus NSAI for postmenopausal women with HR+, HER2− ABC.

PurposeNon-CML myeloproliferative neoplasms (MPN) include essential thrombocythemia (ET), polycythemia vera (PV), and myelofibrosis (MF). Reported median overall survival (OS) ranges from a few to several years for MF, a decade or more for ET and PV. The study objective was to compare US survival rates of ET, PV, and MF patients with matched non-MPN/non-cancer controls in a nationally representative database.Patients and MethodsData were taken retrospectively from the Survey, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER)-Medicare linked database. Medicare enrollees with a new SEER MPN diagnosis between Jan 1, 2001 and Dec 31, 2007 were eligible. First MPN diagnosis was required at or after Medicare enrollment to allow for continuous follow-up. Non-MPN/non-cancer control groups were selected from Medicare separately for each MPN subtype and demographically matched to cases at a ratio of 5∶1. Survival was determined starting from the case diagnosis date using the Kaplan-Meier method.ResultsA total of 3,364 MPN patients (n = 1,217 ET; 1,625 PV; 522 MF) met the inclusion criteria and were matched to controls. Mean age was 78.4, 76.1, and 77.4 years for ET, PV, and MF, respectively, and percent female was 63, 50, and 41. Median OS was significantly (p<0.05) lower for MPN cases vs. controls (ET: 68 vs. 101 months; PV: 65 vs. 104; MF: 24 vs. 106).ConclusionsIn the US Medicare population, survival in MF patients was worse than that of patients with ET or PV and significantly worse than matched controls. Survival of patients with ET or PV was substantially inferior to matched controls. These findings have implications for the clinical management of MPN patients and underscore the need for effective therapies in all MPN subtypes.

BackgroundLimited data exist regarding real-world treatment patterns, resource utilization, and costs of extensive-stage small cell lung cancer (esSCLC) among elderly patients in the United States. While abundant data are available on treatment patterns in metastatic non-small cell lung cancer (mNSCLC), to our knowledge no data exist comparing costs and resource use between patients with esSCLC or mNSCLC.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed administrative claims data (2000–2008) of patients aged ≥65 years from the linked Surveillance, Epidemiology and End Results (SEER)-Medicare database. Patients were selected on the basis of having newly diagnosed esSCLC (n=5,855) or mNSCLC (n=24,090) during 1/1/2000-12/31/2005, and were required to have received cancer-directed therapy. Survival and other measures were compared between esSCLC and mNSCLC patients using Kaplan-Meier log-rank and univariate chi-square and t-tests. Study measures were followed from first diagnosis date of either esSCLC or mNSCLC until the earlier of death or end of the database.ResultsSurvival between the cohorts did not differ significantly: mean of 10.4 months for esSCLC patients versus 11.1 months for mNSCLC; median survival was 7.4 months versus 5.9 months. A higher percentage of mNSCLC patients (vs. esSCLC) received radiation therapy (75.6% vs. 65.4%; P < 0.001) and surgery (13.6% vs. 7.8%; P < 0.001) during the metastatic disease period. Conversely, a higher percentage of esSCLC patients than mNSCLC patients received chemotherapy (85.5% vs. 60.3%; P < 0.001), red blood-cell transfusion (20.7% vs. 10.9%; P < 0.001), platelet transfusion (5.6% vs. 1.8%; P < 0.001), and growth-factor support (59.0% vs. 39.5%; P < 0.001). esSCLC patients incurred higher lifetime disease-related costs ($44,167 vs. $37,932; P < 0.001) and all-cause costs ($70,549 vs. $67,176; P < 0.001) than mNSCLC patients.ConclusionsLifetime total and disease-related costs per patient were high. Increased use of chemotherapy, supportive care therapies (including growth factors), and disease-related hospitalizations were observed in esSCLC patients as compared with mNSCLC patients. Disease-related and all-cause costs for esSCLC also exceeded those of mNSCLC, except for hospice and skilled nursing services. Survival and per-patient costs for both groups underscore the unmet medical need for more effective therapies in patients with esSCLC or mNSCLC.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-014-0555-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.