Final results of the real-life observational VICTOR-6 study on metronomic chemotherapy in elderly metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients

Nowadays, treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has been enriched with novel therapeutical strategies. Metronomic chemotherapy (mCHT) is a continuous and frequent administration of chemotherapy at a lower dose and so whit less toxicity. Thus, this strategy could be attractive for elderly MBC patients. Aim of this analysis is to provide insights into mCHT's activity in a real-life setting of elderly MBC patients. Data of patients ≥ 75 years old included in VICTOR-6 study were analyzed. VICTOR-6 is a multicentre, Italian, retrospective study, which collected data on mCHT in MBC patients treated between 2011 and 2016. A total of 112 patients were included. At the beginning of mCHT, median age was 81 years (75-98) and in 33% of the patients mCHT was the first line choice. Overall Response Rate (ORR) and Disease Control Rate (DCR) were 27.9% and 79.3%, respectively. Median PFS ranged between 7.6 and 9.1 months, OS between 14.1 and 18.5 months. The most relevant toxicity was the hematological one (24.1%); severe toxicity (grade 3-4) ranged from 0.9% for skin toxicity up to 8% for hematologic one. This is a large study about mCHT in elderly MBC patients, providing insights to be further investigated in this subgroup of frail patients.

Metronomic chemotherapy (mCHT) in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients: results of the VICTOR-6 study

Purpose

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents a subtype of breast cancer which lacks the expression of oestrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR) and human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2): TNBC accounts for approximately 20% of newly diagnosed breast cancers and is associated with younger age at diagnosis, greater recurrence risk and shorter survival time. Therapeutic options are very scarce. Aim of the present analysis is to provide further insights into the clinical activity of metronomic chemotherapy (mCHT), in a real-life setting.

Methods

We used data included in the VICTOR-6 study for the present analysis. VICTOR-6 is an Italian multicentre retrospective cohort study, which collected data of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients who have received mCHT between 2011 and 2016. Amongst the 584 patients included in the study, 97 were triple negative. In 40.2% of the TNBC patients, mCHT was the first chemotherapy treatment, whereas 32.9% had received 2 or more lines of treatment for the metastatic disease. 45.4% out of 97 TNBC patients received a vinorelbine (VRL)-based regimen, which resulted in the most used type of mCHT, followed by cyclophosphamide (CTX)-based regimens (30.9%) and capecitabine (CAPE)-based combinations (22.7%).

Results

Overall response rate (ORR) and disease control rate (DCR) were 17.5% and 64.9%, respectively. Median progression free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) were 6.0 months (95% CI: 4.9–7.2) and 12.1 months (95% CI: 9.6–16.7). Median PFS was 6.9 months for CAPE-based regimens (95% CI: 5.0–18.4), 6.1 months (95% CI: 4.0–8.9) for CTX-based and 5.3 months (95% CI: 4.1–9.5) for VRL-based ones. Median OS was 18.2 months (95% CI: 9.1-NE) for CAPE-based regimens and 11.8 months for VRL- (95% CI: 9.3–16.7 and CTX-based ones (95%CI: 8.7–52.8). Tumour response, PFS and OS decreased proportionally in later lines.

Conclusion

This analysis represents the largest series of TNBC patients treated with mCHT in a real-life setting and provides further insights into the advantages of using this strategy even in this poor prognosis subpopulation.

Metronomic chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer patients in the real world practice: Final results of the VICTOR-6 study

Metronomic chemotherapy (mCHT) refers to the minimum biologically effective dose of a chemotherapy agent given as a continuous dosing regimen, with no prolonged drug-free breaks, that leads to antitumor activity. Aim of the present study is to describe the use of mCHT in a retrospective cohort of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients in order to collect data regarding the different types and regimens of drugs employed, their efficacy and safety. Between January 2011 and December 2016, data of 584 metastatic breast cancer patients treated with mCHT were collected. The use of VRL-based regimens increased during the time of observation (2011: 16.8% - 2016: 29.8%), as well as CTX-based ones (2011: 17.1% - 2016: 25.6%), whereas CAPE-based and MTX-based regimens remained stable. In the 1st-line setting, the highest ORR and DCR were observed for VRL-based regimens (single agent: 44% and 88%; combination: 36.7% and 82.4%, respectively). Assuming VRL-single agent as the referee treatment (median PFS: 7.2 months, 95% CI: 5.3-10.3), the longest median PFS were observed in VRL-combination regimens (9.5, 95%CI 88.8-11.3, HR = 0.72) and in CAPE-single agent (10.7, 95%CI 8.3-15.8, HR = 0.70). The VICTOR-6 study provides new data coming from the real-life setting, by adding new information regarding the use of mCHT as an option of treatment for MBC patients.

Abstract P3-12-06: Saving in clinical trials: A possible challenge for improving health care for breast cancer patients

Background: The economic crisis that has characterized recent years has required a careful spending review worldwide and particularly in Italy Health Care System. This resulted in substantial cuts in terms of services and drugs prescriptions.

For this reason, it becomes very important to adopt measures aimed to save health care costs, maintaining at the same time the highest standard of health care. The enrollment in clinical trials (CTs) may encourage this goal, making high-cost drugs available.

Methods: We compared the overall expenses for an oncology patient treated with standard therapy (reference: public hospital price list) to a similar patient enrolled in a CT. The cost comparison was made considering a patient affected by Her2 positive breast cancer in three different settings: neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and advanced/metastatic disease. We considered three categories of cost: diagnostic procedures; drug purchase; drug management. All analyses were performed considering an average treatment period and dose, calculated on a middleweight patient.

We take into account the absolute saving in Euro (€) and the percentage one.

Results: The data show a saving in all treatment lines, referring to the analyzed cost groups.

In neoadjuvant setting, the estimated patient standard cost is 92.829,00€; we calculated a saving of 92.451,00€ (93,74%), of which 1.226,00€ for diagnostic procedures charge (65%), 89.205,00€ for drug purchase (100%) and 2.020,00€ for drug management (116%).

In adjuvant setting, where the estimated standard cost is 25.527,00€, we observed a saving of 23.332,00€ (51%): 22.392,00€ (98% of drug purchase) and 940,00€ (54%) for drug management; no saving for diagnostic procedures.

Regarding the metastatic breast cancer treatment, we calculated a saving of 115.158,00€ (88%) compared to 115.571,00€, that means the estimated standard cost. In this case the saving is allocated as follows: 750,00€ for diagnostic procedures (64.5%), 113.508,00€ for drug purchase (100%) and 900,00€ for drug management (100%).

Conclusions: CTs are useful in order to save money in the overall patient management, allowing them to have access to expensive innovative drugs.

Moreover, we have to consider the additional fees provided by Sponsor for each enrolled patient.

This basic model of cost analysis could be used by Institutional Health Care stakeholders for spending review strategies.

The public institutes with the characteristics of Comprehensive Cancer Center are essential to recruiting the needed study population for Sponsorized CTs, and the cashed and saved money can be reinvested for improving Breast Cancer patients care.Background: The economic crisis that has characterized recent years has required a careful spending review worldwide and particularly in Italy Health Care System. This resulted in substantial cuts in terms of services and drugs prescriptions.

For this reason, it becomes very important to adopt measures aimed to save health care costs, maintaining at the same time the highest standard of health care. The enrollment in clinical trials (CTs) may encourage this goal, making high-cost drugs available.

Methods: We compared the overall expenses for an oncology patient treated with standard therapy (reference: public hospital price list) to a similar patient enrolled in a CT. The cost comparison was made considering a patient affected by Her2 positive breast cancer in three different settings: neoadjuvant, adjuvant, and advanced/metastatic disease. We considered three categories of cost: diagnostic procedures; drug purchase; drug management. All analyses were performed considering an average treatment period and dose, calculated on a middleweight patient.

We take into account the absolute saving in Euro (€) and the percentage one.

Results: The data show a saving in all treatment lines, referring to the analyzed cost groups.

In neoadjuvant setting, the estimated patient standard cost is 92.829,00€; we calculated a saving of 92.451,00€ (93,74%), of which 1.226,00€ for diagnostic procedures charge (65%), 89.205,00€ for drug purchase (100%) and 2.020,00€ for drug management (116%).

In adjuvant setting, where the estimated standard cost is 25.527,00€, we observed a saving of 23.332,00€ (51%): 22.392,00€ (98% of drug purchase) and 940,00€ (54%) for drug management; no saving for diagnostic procedures.

Regarding the metastatic breast cancer treatment, we calculated a saving of 115.158,00€ (88%) compared to 115.571,00€, that means the estimated standard cost. In this case the saving is allocated as follows: 750,00€ for diagnostic procedures (64.5%), 113.508,00€ for drug purchase (100%) and 900,00€ for drug management (100%).

Conclusions: CTs are useful in order to save money in the overall patient management, allowing them to have access to expensive innovative drugs.

Moreover, we have to consider the additional fees provided by Sponsor for each enrolled patient.

This basic model of cost analysis could be used by Institutional Health Care stakeholders for spending review strategies.

The public institutes with the characteristics of Comprehensive Cancer Center are essential to recruiting the needed study population for Sponsorized CTs, and the cashed and saved money can be reinvested for improving Breast Cancer patients care.

Citation Format: Taverniti C, Bonfadini C, Pradotto M, Cagnazzo C, Demartini P, Rossi L, Ignazzi G, Arizio F, Beano A. Saving in clinical trials: A possible challenge for improving health care for breast cancer patients [abstract]. In: Proceedings of the 2016 San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; 2016 Dec 6-10; San Antonio, TX. Philadelphia (PA): AACR; Cancer Res 2017;77(4 Suppl):Abstract nr P3-12-06.