Efficacy and clinical outcome of chemotherapy and endocrine therapy as first-line treatment in patients with hormone receptor-positive HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Endocrine therapy (ET) and ET-based regimens are the preferred first-line treatment options for hormone receptor (HR)-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer (HR+/HER2- MBC), while chemotherapy (CT) is commonly used in clinical practice. The aim of this study was to investigate the efficacy and clinical outcome of ET and CT as first-line treatment in Chinese patients with HR+/HER2- MBC.

METHODS

Patients diagnosed with HR+/HER2-MBC between January 1st, 1996 and September 30th, 2018 were screened from the Chinese Society of Clinical Oncology Breast Cancer database. The initial and maintenance first-line treatment, progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were analyzed.

RESULTS

Among the 1877 included patients, 1215 (64.7%) received CT and 662 (35.3%) received ET as initial first-line treatment. There were no statistically significant differences in PFS and OS between patients receiving ET and CT as initial first-line treatment in the total population (PFS: 12.0 vs. 11.0 months, P = 0.22; OS: 54.0 vs . 49.0 months, P =0.09) and propensity score matched population. For patients without disease progression after at least 3 months of initial therapy, maintenance ET following initial CT (CT-ET cohort, n = 449) and continuous schedule of ET (ET cohort, n = 527) had longer PFS than continuous schedule of CT (CT cohort, n = 406) in the total population (CT-ET cohort vs. CT cohort: 17.0 vs . 8.5 months; P <0.01; ET cohort vs . CT cohort: 14.0 vs . 8.5 months; P <0.01) and propensity score matched population. OS in the three cohorts yielded the same results as PFS.

CONCLUSIONS

ET was associated with similar clinical outcome to CT as initial first-line treatment. For patients without disease progression after initial CT, switching to maintenance ET showed superiority in clinical outcome over continuous schedule of CT.

Factors affecting prognosis in patients treated with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel as first-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: an international pooled analysis of individual patient data from four prospective observational studies

BACKGROUND

Bevacizumab (BV) plus paclitaxel (PTX) is a treatment option in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We conducted an international pooled analysis with individual patient data to evaluate the effectiveness of BV + PTX as a first-line treatment for HER2-negative mBC patients under routine practice.

METHODS

A total of 2,474 mBC patients treated with BV + PTX from four prospective observational studies were analyzed. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The other endpoints including identifying independent prognostic factors and validation of the modified Prognostic Factor Index (PFI) developed in the ATHENA trial.

RESULTS

Median follow-up time was 10.9 months (M). Median OS were 21.4 M (95% confidential interval 19.8-22.7 M). The seven independent prognostic factors (tumor subtype, age, ECOG performance status (PS), disease-free interval (DFI), liver metastases, number of metastatic organs, and prior anthracycline and/or taxane treatment) for OS found in this analysis included the five risk factors (RFs [DFI < 24 months, ECOG PS 2, liver metastases and/or > 3 metastasis organ sites, TNBC, prior anthracycline and/or taxane therapy]). High- (> 3 RFs [median OS 12.6 M]) and intermediate-risk groups (2 RFs [median OS 18.0 M]) had a significantly worse prognosis than the low-risk group (< 1 RF [median OS 27.4 M]), (p < 0.0001).

CONCLUSIONS

This international pooled analysis showed the effectiveness of first-line BV + PTX for HER2-negative mBC patients identifying seven independent prognostic factors as real-world evidence. The usefulness of the modified PFI developed in the ATHENA trial in predicting OS among patients receiving BV + PTX was also verified.

Switch maintenance endocrine therapy plus bevacizumab after bevacizumab plus paclitaxel in advanced or metastatic oestrogen receptor-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer (BOOSTER): a randomised, open-label, phase 2 trial

BACKGROUND

Anticancer treatment regimens typically cause unpleasant side-effects. We aimed to investigate the benefit of switch maintenance endocrine therapy plus bevacizumab after fixed cycles of first-line induction chemotherapy with weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab in patients with oestrogen receptor (ER)-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

BOOSTER was a prospective, open-label, multicentre, randomised, controlled, phase 2 study done in 53 hospitals in Japan. Eligible patients were women aged 20-75 years, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, who had not received chemotherapy for ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer. All patients received four to six cycles (in which 4 weeks of treatment constitute one cycle) of weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab induction therapy (weekly paclitaxel 90 mg/m2, administered intravenously on days 1, 8, and 15 of each cycle, plus bevacizumab 10 mg/kg administered intravenously on days 1 and 15 of each cycle; first registration). Patients with a complete response, partial response, or stable disease after induction therapy (responders) were then randomly assigned (1:1) using the randomisation enrolment form to either continue weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab or switch to maintenance endocrine therapy (an aromatase inhibitor or fulvestrant with or without ovarian-function suppression) plus bevacizumab. Randomisation was stratified by induction therapy period, response to induction therapy, age, history of endocrine therapy, and study site. Patients could receive weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab reinduction if they had disease progression with maintenance endocrine therapy plus bevacizumab. The primary endpoint was time to failure of strategy (TFS). Efficacy and safety analyses were done in all treated patients (full analysis set). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01989780, and registration and follow-up are closed.

FINDINGS

Between Jan 1, 2014, and Dec 31, 2015, we enrolled 160 patients who began weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab induction therapy. 125 (78%) patients (responders) were randomly assigned to endocrine therapy plus bevacizumab (n=62; n=61 in the full analysis set) or weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab (n=63; n=63 in the full analysis set). Among 61 patients in the switch maintenance endocrine therapy plus bevacizumab group, 32 (52%) were reinitiated on weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab. At a median follow-up of 21·3 months (IQR 13·0-28·2), TFS was significantly longer in the endocrine therapy plus bevacizumab group than in the weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab group (median 16·8 months [95% CI 12·9-19·0] vs 8·9 months [5·7-13·8]; hazard ratio 0·51 [0·34-0·75]; p=0·0006). The most common grade 3-4 non-haematological adverse events after randomisation were proteinuria (in ten [16%] of 61 patients in the endocrine therapy plus bevacizumab group vs eight [13%] of 63 patients in the weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab group), hypertension (six [10%] vs six [10%]), and peripheral neuropathy (one [2%] vs six [10%]). One treatment-related death was reported in the weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab group (duodenal ulcer perforation).

INTERPRETATION

Switch to maintenance endocrine therapy plus bevacizumab with the possibility of weekly paclitaxel reinduction if needed is an efficacious alternative, with a better safety profile, to continuing weekly paclitaxel plus bevacizumab in patients with ER-positive, HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer who have responded to induction therapy.

FUNDING

Chugai Pharmaceutical.

TRANSLATION

For the Japanese translation of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.

Front-Line Bevacizumab plus Chemotherapy with or without Maintenance Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Observational Study by the Hellenic Oncology Research Group

Front-line bevacizumab (BEV) in combination with taxanes offers benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). The medical records of mBC patients, treated with front-line BEV-based chemotherapy, were retrospectively reviewed in order to generate real life safety and efficacy data. Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative mBC treated with front-line BEV in combination with chemotherapy were eligible. Maintenance therapy with BEV and/or hormonal agents was at the physicians’ discretion. Among the 387 included patients, the most common adverse events were anemia (61.9%, mainly grade 1), grade 3/4 neutropenia (16.5%), grade 1/2 fatigue (22.3%), and grade 1/2 neuropathy (19.6%). Dose reductions were required in 164 cycles (7.1%) and toxicity led to treatment discontinuation in 21 patients (5.4%). The median PFS and the median overall survival (OS) were 13.3 (95% CI: 11.7–14.8) and 32.3 months (95% CI: 27.7–36.9), respectively. Maintenance therapy, with hormonal agents (ET) and/or BEV, was associated with longer OS versus no maintenance therapy (47.2 versus 23.6 months; p < 0.001) in patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive disease and BEV maintenance offered longer OS versus no maintenance in patients with HR-negative disease (52.8 versus 23.3; p = 0.023). These real-life data show that front-line BEV-based chemotherapy in HER2-negative mBC patients is an effective treatment with an acceptable toxicity profile. The potential benefit of maintenance treatment, especially ET, is important and warrants further research.

Capecitabine in Combination with Endocrine Therapy as Maintenance Therapy after Bevacizumab Plus Paclitaxel Induction Therapy for Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: KBCSG-TR1214

Simple Summary

To investigate a possible treatment strategy for hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer (AMBC), we investigated the clinical usefulness of adding capecitabine to maintenance endocrine therapy after induction chemotherapy and the efficacy of reinduction chemotherapy. Patients who had received bevacizumab–paclitaxel induction therapy and did not have progressive disease were randomized to receive maintenance therapy with endocrine therapy alone (group E; n = 46) or endocrine therapy plus capecitabine (group EC; n = 44). The median progression-free survival (PFS) under maintenance therapy (primary endpoint) was significantly longer in group EC than in group E (11.1 vs. 4.3 months; hazard ratio, 0.53; p < 0.01). At 24 months from the induction therapy start, the overall survival (OS) rate was significantly higher in group EC than in group E (83.5% vs. 62.3%; p = 0.02). Therefore, the addition of capecitabine to maintenance endocrine therapy may be a beneficial option after induction chemotherapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative AMBC patients.

Abstract

Optimal treatment strategies for hormone receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative advanced and/or metastatic breast cancer (AMBC) remain uncertain. We investigated the clinical usefulness of adding capecitabine to maintenance endocrine therapy after induction chemotherapy and the efficacy of reinduction chemotherapy. Patients who had received bevacizumab–paclitaxel induction therapy and did not have progressive disease (PD) were randomized to maintenance therapy with endocrine therapy alone (group E) or endocrine plus capecitabine (1657 mg/m²/day on days 1–21, q4w) (group EC). In case of PD after maintenance therapy, patients received bevacizumab–paclitaxel reinduction therapy. Ninety patients were randomized. The median progression-free survival (PFS) under maintenance therapy (primary endpoint) was significantly longer in group EC (11.1 {95% CI, 8.0–11.8} months) than in group E (4.3 {3.6–6.0} months) (hazard ratio, 0.53; p < 0.01). At 24 months from the induction therapy start, the overall survival (OS) was significantly longer in group EC than in group E (hazard ratio, 0.41; p = 0.046). No difference was found in the time to failure of strategy (13.9 and 16.6 months in groups E and EC, respectively). Increased capecitabine-associated toxicities in group EC were tolerable. Addition of capecitabine to maintenance endocrine therapy may be a beneficial option after induction chemotherapy for HR-positive, HER2-negative AMBC patients.

Elective Discontinuation of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in Patients with Metastatic Hormone Receptor-Positive, Her-2-Negative Breast Cancer: A Retrospective Single-Center Experience

INTRODUCTION

Cyclin-dependent 4/6 kinase (CDK4/6) inhibitors given with endocrine therapy until disease progression are standard of care in the treatment of women with advanced HR-positive Her-2-negative breast cancer. No data are available if therapy can be safely de-escalated to endocrine monotherapy in patients with long-lasting disease control.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis on the clinical course of 22 patients at our center who received CDK4/6 inhibitors with aromatase inhibitors or fulvestrant. All patients had at least stable disease for >6 months and made a joint decision with their provider to electively discontinue CDK4/6 inhibitors. Best objective response (BOR) at treatment discontinuation, progression-free survival, and re-treatment characteristics were recorded.

RESULTS

Of 138 patients who received CDK4/6 inhibitors as first- or second-line therapy at our center, 22 met the inclusion criteria. Median duration of CDK4/6 treatment was 18 months (range 6-45). BOR was complete response in 1, partial response in 8, and stable disease in 13 patients. After a median duration of endocrine monotherapy of 9.5 months (range 5-44 months), 6 of 22 patients had progressive disease (1 local relapse and 5 systemic progression). All patients with disease progression had at least stable disease to chemotherapy (N = 1) or re-treatment with CDK4/6 inhibitors (N = 4).

CONCLUSION

Elective discontinuation of CDK4/6 inhibitors is feasible in patients with long-lasting disease stabilization. This strategy should be evaluated in prospective trials.

Survival analysis of bevacizumab plus taxane treatment in luminal metastatic breast cancer

Background

The treatment of luminal metastatic breast cancer is based on endocrine therapy and chemotherapy treatment is limited to the progression of this treatment.

Materials & methods

We analyzed the efficacy of treatment with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel in 43 patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Discussion

Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab combination is a useful treatment in metastatic luminal breast cancer with an impressive overall survival of 31 months, similar to combination to endocrine therapy and targeted therapy in first line. In patients with hormone resistance, endocrine therapy saw worse results thus the taxol plus bevacizumab combination could be a better option. This combination does not influence the results of subsequent treatments; therefore, it could provide a good option for patients.

A Phase II Study of Fulvestrant 500 mg as Maintenance Therapy in Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer After First-Line Chemotherapy

LESSONS LEARNED

Fulvestrant 500 mg maintenance therapy showed a clinical benefit rate of 76% and median progression-free survival of 16.1 months in patients who achieved objective responses or disease control after first-line chemotherapy. Adverse events with fulvestrant maintenance therapy were consistent with the known safety profile of the drug.

BACKGROUND

Evidence for maintenance hormonal therapy after chemotherapy for estrogen receptor (ER)-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer is scarce. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of fulvestrant 500 mg maintenance therapy in patients after first-line chemotherapy.

METHODS

We enrolled postmenopausal women with ER-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who attained tumor responses or disease control with four to eight cycles of chemotherapy as first-line treatment. Fulvestrant 500 mg was injected on days 1, 15, and 29 and every 28 (±3) days thereafter. The primary endpoint was the clinical benefit rate (CBR); the secondary endpoints included the objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS), and safety.

RESULTS

We included 58 patients; the median follow-up duration was 32.6 months. The CBR since commencing fulvestrant maintenance therapy was 76% (95% confidence interval [CI], 63%-86%), and ORR was 14% (95% CI, 6%-25%); eight patients achieved partial response. The median PFS for fulvestrant maintenance therapy was 16.1 months (95% CI, 10.3-21.0 months). Thirty-nine patients (67%) reported at least one adverse event, of which most were grade 1/2, whereas three patients (5%) reported grade 3 adverse events.

CONCLUSION

Fulvestrant 500 mg is a feasible and promising hormonal maintenance strategy in patients with ER-positive/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer who have no disease progression after first-line chemotherapy.

Comparison of Endocrine Therapies in Hormone Receptor-Positive and Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Negative Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis

We aimed to explore what kind of endocrine treatments are optimal for hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer in some specific clinical situations. We searched randomized controlled trials in Embase, Medline, the Cochrane library, and PubMed from inception to April 1, 2020 and performed a network meta-analysis based on a Bayesian fixed-effects model. Progression-free survival (PFS) with hazard ratios and corresponding 95% confidence interval was defined as the primary endpoint, while overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), clinical benefit rate and serious adverse events were used as secondary endpoints. A total of 35 studies involving 12,285 patients and 24 treatment options were included. In general, most co-treatment options prolonged PFS compared to single-agent therapy, of which aromatase inhibitor (AI) plus everolimus and fulvestrant plus palbociclib were probably the most effective agents, and the latter had the best safety record. However, despite the superior efficacy of fulvestrant plus capecitabine for PFS and OS, palpable toxic effects have been demonstrated for this treatment, so its application must be scrupulously considered. The results of subgroup analysis indicated that fulvestrant combined with palbociclib improved prognosis for phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K)-mutated patients, PI3K-unmutated patients, patients with endocrine therapy resistance, and visceral metastatic patients, while no obvious improvement was detected in OS. Moreover, the efficacy of fulvestrant plus cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors was slightly better than that of AI plus CDK4/6 inhibitors, while AI plus everolimus was more efficacious than fulvestrant combined with everolimus in terms of PFS, OS, and ORR. In conclusion, our results provide moderate evidence that fulvestrant plus palbociclib and AI plus everolimus were the most effective treatments, while the efficacy and safety of fulvestrant plus palbociclib was obviously superior in some specific clinical situations.

Survival in patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer treated with initial endocrine therapy versus initial chemotherapy. A French population-based study

Background

According to international guidelines, endocrine therapy (ET) is the preferred option for hormone receptor-positive (HR+) HER2-negative (HER2−) metastatic breast cancer. In spite of clear recommendations, these are not strictly followed in daily practice. The objectives of this study were to investigate the effect of the first anti-metastatic treatment therapy choice on progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS).

Methods

In this population-based study, we included patients with HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer recorded in the Côte d’Or Breast Cancer Registry. Differences in PFS and OS between patients initially treated with chemotherapy (CT) or ET were analysed in Cox proportional hazards models. In a sensitivity analysis, we used a propensity score (PS) to limit the indication bias.

Results

Altogether, 557 cases were included, 280 received initial ET and 277 received initial CT. PFS and OS in patients initially treated with ET was improved significantly when compared to patients with initial CT (respectively, HR = 0.83 (95% CI 0.69–0.99) and HR = 0.71 (95% CI 0.58–0.86)). The results of the sensitivity analysis supported these findings.

Conclusion

This study shows that treating patients with HR+/HER2− metastatic breast cancer with initial ET could provide a survival advantage in comparison with initial CT.

Quality of adverse event reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of breast and colorectal cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

Clinical trial reports often emphasize efficacy over harms, leading to misinterpretation of the risk-to-benefit ratio of new therapies. Clear and sufficiently detailed reporting of methods and results is especially important in the abstracts of trial reports, as readers often base their assessment of a trial on such information. In this study, we evaluated the quality of adverse event (AE) reporting and abstract quality in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic therapies in breast and colorectal cancer.

METHODS

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of RCTs, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from November 2005 to September 2018. Phase III RCTs evaluating systemic therapies in breast or colorectal cancer were included. Each article was independently reviewed by two investigators using a standardized data extraction form based on guidelines developed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariable linear regression were used to analyze data. All statistical tests were two-sided.

RESULTS

Of 166 RCTs identified, 99.4% reported harms in the manuscript body, and 59.6% reported harms in the abstract. Reporting was restricted to severe harms in 15.6% of RCTs. Statistical comparison of AE rates went unreported in 59.0% of studies. Information regarding AEs leading to dose reductions, treatment discontinuations, or study withdrawals went unreported in 59.3%, 18.7%, and 86.8% of studies, respectively. Recently published RCTs (P = .009) and those sponsored at least partially by for-profit companies (P = .003) had higher abstract quality scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Breast and colorectal cancer phase III RCTs inadequately report CONSORT-compliant AE data. Improved guideline adherence and abstract reporting is required to properly weigh benefits and harms of new oncologic therapies.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42019140673.

Efficacy of bevacizumab combined with chemotherapy in the treatment of HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a network meta-analysis

Background

It is not known what combination of bevacizumab and chemotherapy agents is the best therapeutic regimen. Comparative study results among the efficacies of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy remain controversial in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Methods

We searched Pubmed, Embase, and Cochrane Library Central Resister of Controlled Trials through were July 2019 for randomized controlled trials that evaluated the efficacy of bevacizumab plus chemotherapy in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Data on included study characteristics, outcomes, and risk of bias were abstracted by two reviewers.

Results

A total of 16 RCT studies involving 5689 patients were included. The results showed that bevacizumab (Bev) - taxanes (Tax) - capecitabine (Cap) has highest-ranking and is probably more effective for prolonging progression-free survival (PFS) than Tax, Cap, Bev-Tax and Bev-Cap, which was no convincing differences among Bev-Cap-vinorelbine, Bev-Tax-everolimus, Bev-Tax-trebananib, Bev-exemestane, Bev-Cap-cyclophosphamide in Bev-containing regimens. For overall response rate (ORR), Bev-Tax-Cap is superior to Tax, Cap and Bev-Cap, while Bev-Tax-trebananib is superior to Cap. The cumulative probability ranking showed that Bev-Tax-Cap or Bev-Tax-trebananib may have best pathological response rate in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

Conclusion

Our results provide moderate quality evidence that bevacizumab-taxanes-capecitabine maybe the most effective bevacizumab plus chemotherapy on PFS and ORR in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, however it should be also considered that bevacizumab may add toxicity to chemotherapy and whether improve overall survival (OS) or not.

The influence on quality of life of intermittent scheduling in first- and second-line chemotherapy of patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The Stop&Go study randomized patients with advanced breast cancer to intermittent (two times four) or continuous (eight subsequent cycles) first- and second-line chemotherapy.

METHODS

QoL was measured with RAND-36 questionnaires every 12 weeks. The primary objective was to estimate differences in changes from baseline between intermittent and continuous treatment. An effect size of 0.5 SD (5 points) was considered clinically meaningful.

RESULTS

A total of 398 patients were included with a median follow-up of 11.4 months (IQR 5.6-22.2). Mean physical QoL baseline scores were 38.0 resp. 38.2, and mental scores 45.0 resp. 42.4 for intermittent and continuous treatment. Physical QoL declined linearly in the intermittent arm causing a clinically meaningful difference of 5.40 points at 24 months (p < 0.001), while scores in the continuous arm stabilized after a small decline of ± 3.4 points at 12 months. Conversely, mental QoL was fairly stable and even improved with 1.58 (p = 0.005) and 2.48 points (p < 0.001) at 12 months for intermittent and continuous treatment, respectively. When comparing arms for both components in changes from baseline, the maximum differences were 2.46 (p = 0.101) and 1.95 points (p = 0.182) for physical and mental scores, both measured at 30 months and in favor of continuous treatment.

CONCLUSION

Intermittent first- and second-line chemotherapy in patients with HER2-negative advanced breast cancer showed a trend for worse impact on QoL compared to continuous chemotherapy, with neither significant nor meaningful differences in course. We recommend prescribing chemotherapy continuously until progressive disease or unacceptable toxicity. Trial registration EudraCT 2010-021519-18; BOOG 2010-02.

Maintenance Therapy in HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: A New Approach for an Old Concept

The aim of this article is to discuss the role of maintenance therapy with chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, or bevacizumab-based combination therapy in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative metastatic breast cancer. The optimization of maintenance therapy in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer must be based on disease profile (tumor subtype and endocrine-sensitive status), the prior use of bevacizumab-containing regimens, and the number of prognostic risk factors. Chemotherapy should be used in patients with triple-negative breast cancer and endocrine-resistant hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer, whereas endocrine therapy is the preferred option for patients with endocrine-sensitive hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer. After first-line bevacizumab plus chemotherapy, bevacizumab may be continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity, and endocrine therapy or capecitabine may be added. The goals of maintenance therapy in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer are to improve and maintain clinical response, increase time to progression, extend overall survival, relieve tumor-related symptoms, and delay the use of aggressive therapies, without compromising quality of life. Maintenance therapy, using chemotherapy, endocrine therapy, and combined therapy with bevacizumab, is a reasonable strategy to achieve these goals in patients with either triple-negative breast cancer or hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Ongoing clinical studies of new molecular-targeted therapies may provide additional pharmacological options for future maintenance strategies in these patients.

Potential lymphangiogenesis therapies: Learning from current antiangiogenesis therapies-A review

In recent years, lymphangiogenesis, the process of lymphatic vessel formation from existing lymph vessels, has been demonstrated to have a significant role in diverse pathologies, including cancer metastasis, organ graft rejection, and lymphedema. Our understanding of the mechanisms of lymphangiogenesis has advanced on the heels of studies demonstrating vascular endothelial growth factor C as a central pro-lymphangiogenic regulator and others identifying multiple lymphatic endothelial biomarkers. Despite these breakthroughs and a growing appreciation of the signaling events that govern the lymphangiogenic process, there are no FDA-approved drugs that target lymphangiogenesis. In this review, we reflect on the lessons available from the development of antiangiogenic therapies (26 FDA-approved drugs to date), review current lymphangiogenesis research including nanotechnology in therapeutic drug delivery and imaging, and discuss molecules in the lymphangiogenic pathway that are promising therapeutic targets.

A Real-World Multicentre Retrospective Study of Paclitaxel-Bevacizumab and Maintenance Therapy as First-Line for HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer

Bevacizumab in combination with taxanes in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients has shown improved progression-free survival (PFS), despite the lack of clear overall survival (OS) benefit. We performed a retrospective analysis to evaluate the impact of paclitaxel-bevacizumab and of maintenance therapy with bevacizumab (BM) and endocrine therapy (ET) in the real-world practice. We identified 314 HER2-negative MBC patients treated in 12 cancer centers. Overall, the median PFS and OS were 14 and 40 months, respectively. Among the 254 patients potentially eligible for BM, 183 received BM after paclitaxel discontinuation until progression/toxicity. PFS and OS were improved in patients who had received BM in comparison with those potentially eligible but who did not receive BM (P< 0.0001 and P = 0.001, respectively). Results were confirmed when adjusting for propensity score. Among the 216 hormone-receptor positive patients eligible for BM, a more favorable PFS and OS were observed when maintenance ET was administered (P < 0.0001). Multivariate analysis showed that PS, BM, number of disease sites and maintenance ET were related to PFS, while response and maintenance ET were related to OS. In hormone-receptor positive patients, BM produced a significant PFS and a trend towards OS benefit only in absence of maintenance ET (P = 0.0007 and P = 0.06, respectively). In the triple-negative subgroup, we observed a trend towards a better OS for patients who received BM (P = 0.06), without differences in PFS (P = 0.21). Our results confirmed the efficacy of first-line paclitaxel-bevacizumab in real-world practice; both BM and maintenance ET significantly improved PFS and OS compared to no maintenance therapies. J. Cell. Physiol. 232: 1571-1578, 2017. © 2016 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Clinical results of randomized trials and 'real-world' data exploring the impact of Bevacizumab for breast cancer: opportunities for clinical practice and perspectives for research

INTRODUCTION

Angiogenesis plays a fundamental role in breast cancer (BC) growth, progression and metastatic spread. After the promising introduction of bevacizumab for the treatment of advanced BC, the initial enthusiasm decreased when the FDA withdrew its approval in 2011. Nevertheless, several clinical studies exploring the role of bevacizumab have been subsequently published. Areas covered: The aim of this study is to review the available clinical trials exploring the potential effectiveness of bevacizumab in BC, regardless of the disease setting. Expert opinion: Even if the evidence suggests that bevacizumab must be ruled out from the HER2-positive and adjuvant setting, bevacizumab's benefit remains uncertain in the neoadjuvant setting and in the advanced treatment of HER2-negative patients. In the first setting, the addition of bevacizumab to chemotherapy increased the pathological complete response (pCR) rate in most clinical trials. However, the current absence of evidence that pCR is a trial-level surrogate for survival requires waiting for long-term results. In the advanced setting, all trials showed a benefit in progression-free survival, but not in overall survival, highlighting an increase of adverse events. The lack of predictors of response represents the main unmet need in which future clinical research will undoubtedly invest.

Anti-angiogenic treatment in breast cancer: Facts, successes, failures and future perspectives

Angiogenesis is one of the hallmarks of cancer and a crucial requisite in the development of tumors. Interrupting this process by blocking the vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) with the monoclonal antibody bevacizumab has been considered a possible breakthrough in the treatment of various types of cancer, especially for advanced disease. However in breast cancer, studies have shown ambivalent results causing debate about the value of this drug. In this article, we review the evidence for anti-angiogenic treatment options for breast cancer, as well as discuss the possible factors limiting the effectiveness of anti-angiogenic agents and offer a recommendation regarding the future research on these therapies for the treatment of breast cancer.

A Delphi consensus and open debate on the role of first-line bevacizumab for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

To gain consensus on the role of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, a panel of expert oncologists experienced in treating patients with metastatic breast cancer in Italy participated in a Delphi consensus study. The panel reached a full consensus on the efficacy of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and the clinical meaningfulness of the progression-free survival benefit compared with paclitaxel alone, despite the lack of an overall survival effect in clinical trials. The participants agreed that real-world data support the effectiveness and well-defined safety profile of the regimen. Views on the use of bevacizumab plus paclitaxel in specific patient populations were not unanimous and clinical judgment remains important. Nevertheless, a high level of agreement was reached.