CLINICAL TRIAL, PHASE II
JOURNAL ARTICLE
MULTICENTER STUDY
RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL
RESEARCH SUPPORT, NON-U.S. GOV'T
Clinical efficacy of fulvestrant versus exemestane as first-line therapies for Chinese postmenopausal oestrogen-receptor positive /human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 -advanced breast cancer (FRIEND study).
European Journal of Cancer 2023 May
AIM: To compare the efficacies of exemestane and fulvestrant as first-line monotherapies for postmenopausal Chinese women having advanced oestrogen-receptor positive (ER+)/ human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-breast cancer (ER+/HER2- ABC) after a previous treatment for ≥2 years with an adjuvant non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor.
METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, multi-centre, parallel-controlled phase 2 FRIEND study, 145 postmenopausal ER+/HER2- ABC patients were assigned into fulvestrant (500 mg on days 0, 14 and 28, and then at every 28 ± 3 days, n = 77) and exemestane (25 mg/day, n = 67) groups. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), while the secondary outcomes were disease control rate, objective response rate, time to treatment failure, duration of response and overall survival. Exploratory end-points included gene mutation-related outcomes and safety.
RESULTS: Fulvestrant was superior to exemestane regarding median PFS times (8.5 versus 5.6 months, p = 0.014, HR = 0.62, 95% confidence intervals: 0.42-0.91), objective response rates (19.5% versus 6.0%, p = 0.017) and time to treatment failure (8.4 versus 5.5 months, p = 0.008). The incidence of adverse or serious adverse events in the two groups was virtually identical. The most frequent mutations in 129 analysed patients were detected in the oestrogen receptor gene 1 (ESR1) (18/14.0%), PIK3CA (40/31.0%) and TP53 (29/22.5%) genes. Fulvestrant produced significant longer PFS times compared to exemestane but only for patients with an ESR1-wild type (8.5 versus 5.8 months) (p = 0.035), although there was a similar trend also for the ESR1 mutation without statistical significance. All patients with c-MYC and BRCA2 mutations had longer PFS times in the fulvestrant versus the exemestane group (p = 0.049, p = 0.039).
CONCLUSION: Fulvestrant significantly increased overall PFS for ER+/HER2- ABC patients and was well tolerated.
CLINICALTRIALS: NCT02646735, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02646735.
METHODS: In this randomised, open-label, multi-centre, parallel-controlled phase 2 FRIEND study, 145 postmenopausal ER+/HER2- ABC patients were assigned into fulvestrant (500 mg on days 0, 14 and 28, and then at every 28 ± 3 days, n = 77) and exemestane (25 mg/day, n = 67) groups. The primary outcome was progression-free survival (PFS), while the secondary outcomes were disease control rate, objective response rate, time to treatment failure, duration of response and overall survival. Exploratory end-points included gene mutation-related outcomes and safety.
RESULTS: Fulvestrant was superior to exemestane regarding median PFS times (8.5 versus 5.6 months, p = 0.014, HR = 0.62, 95% confidence intervals: 0.42-0.91), objective response rates (19.5% versus 6.0%, p = 0.017) and time to treatment failure (8.4 versus 5.5 months, p = 0.008). The incidence of adverse or serious adverse events in the two groups was virtually identical. The most frequent mutations in 129 analysed patients were detected in the oestrogen receptor gene 1 (ESR1) (18/14.0%), PIK3CA (40/31.0%) and TP53 (29/22.5%) genes. Fulvestrant produced significant longer PFS times compared to exemestane but only for patients with an ESR1-wild type (8.5 versus 5.8 months) (p = 0.035), although there was a similar trend also for the ESR1 mutation without statistical significance. All patients with c-MYC and BRCA2 mutations had longer PFS times in the fulvestrant versus the exemestane group (p = 0.049, p = 0.039).
CONCLUSION: Fulvestrant significantly increased overall PFS for ER+/HER2- ABC patients and was well tolerated.
CLINICALTRIALS: NCT02646735, https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02646735.
Full text links
Trending Papers
The future of intensive care: the study of the microcirculation will help to guide our therapies.Critical Care : the Official Journal of the Critical Care Forum 2023 May 17
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
Read by QxMD is copyright © 2021 QxMD Software Inc. All rights reserved. By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app