S Ohno1, Y Rai2, H Iwata3, N Yamamoto4, M Yoshida5, H Iwase6, N Masuda7, S Nakamura8, H Taniguchi9, S Kamigaki10, S Noguchi11. 1. Division of Breast Oncology, National Kyushu Cancer Center, Fukuoka. Electronic address: sohno@nk-cc.go.jp. 2. Department of Breast Surgery, Sagara Hospital, Kagoshima. 3. Department of Breast Oncology, Aichi Cancer Center Hospital, Nagoya. 4. Department of Breast Surgery, Chiba Cancer Center, Chiba. 5. Department of Breast Surgery, Seirei Hamamatsu General Hospital, Shizuoka. 6. Department of Breast and Endocrine Surgery, Kumamoto University Hospital, Kumamoto. 7. Department of Surgery, National Hospital Organization Osaka National Hospital, Osaka. 8. Department of Breast Surgical Oncology, St Luke's International Hospital, Tokyo. 9. Department of Surgery, The Japanese Red Cross Nagasaki Atomic Bomb Hospital, Nagasaki. 10. Department of Surgery, Sakai Municipal Hospital, Osaka. 11. Department of Oncology, Osaka University Graduate School of Medicine, Osaka, Japan.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: FINDER1 compared efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics (PK) of three fulvestrant dose regimens in postmenopausal Japanese women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer recurring or progressing after prior endocrine therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary end point of this randomised, multicentre, phase II study was objective response rate (ORR) and the secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), clinical benefit rate (CBR), PK profiles and tolerability. Postmenopausal women with ER-positive advanced breast cancer were randomised to 28-day cycles of fulvestrant approved dose (AD), loading dose (LD) or high dose (HD) until disease progression. RESULTS:Hundred and forty-three patients (median age 61 years) receivedfulvestrant AD (n = 45), LD (n = 51) or HD (n = 47). ORR was similar across dose regimens: 11.1%, 17.6% and 10.6% for AD, LD and HD, respectively, with overlapping confidence intervals. TTP and CBR were also similar between groups (median TTP: 6.0, 7.5 and 6.0 months, respectively; CBR: 42.2%, 54.9% and 46.8% for AD, LD and HD, respectively). C(max) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve were dose proportional and PK steady state was reached earlier with LD and HD than with AD. All three doses were well tolerated, with a similar adverse-event profile and no emerging safety concerns. CONCLUSION:Fulvestrant AD, LD and HD had similar efficacy and tolerability profiles in postmenopausal Japanese women with ER-positive advanced breast cancer.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: FINDER1 compared efficacy, tolerability and pharmacokinetics (PK) of three fulvestrant dose regimens in postmenopausal Japanese women with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer recurring or progressing after prior endocrine therapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The primary end point of this randomised, multicentre, phase II study was objective response rate (ORR) and the secondary end points included time to progression (TTP), clinical benefit rate (CBR), PK profiles and tolerability. Postmenopausal women with ER-positive advanced breast cancer were randomised to 28-day cycles of fulvestrant approved dose (AD), loading dose (LD) or high dose (HD) until disease progression. RESULTS: Hundred and forty-three patients (median age 61 years) received fulvestrantAD (n = 45), LD (n = 51) or HD (n = 47). ORR was similar across dose regimens: 11.1%, 17.6% and 10.6% for AD, LD and HD, respectively, with overlapping confidence intervals. TTP and CBR were also similar between groups (median TTP: 6.0, 7.5 and 6.0 months, respectively; CBR: 42.2%, 54.9% and 46.8% for AD, LD and HD, respectively). C(max) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve were dose proportional and PK steady state was reached earlier with LD and HD than with AD. All three doses were well tolerated, with a similar adverse-event profile and no emerging safety concerns. CONCLUSION:FulvestrantAD, LD and HD had similar efficacy and tolerability profiles in postmenopausal Japanese women with ER-positive advanced breast cancer.
Authors: Ewa Mrózek; Rachel Layman; Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy; Larry Schaaf; Xiaobai Li; Susan Ottman; Charles L Shapiro Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2012-04 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: James D Joseph; Beatrice Darimont; Wei Zhou; Alfonso Arrazate; Amy Young; Ellen Ingalla; Kimberly Walter; Robert A Blake; Jim Nonomiya; Zhengyu Guan; Lorna Kategaya; Steven P Govek; Andiliy G Lai; Mehmet Kahraman; Dan Brigham; John Sensintaffar; Nhin Lu; Gang Shao; Jing Qian; Kate Grillot; Michael Moon; Rene Prudente; Eric Bischoff; Kyoung-Jin Lee; Celine Bonnefous; Karensa L Douglas; Jackaline D Julien; Johnny Y Nagasawa; Anna Aparicio; Josh Kaufman; Benjamin Haley; Jennifer M Giltnane; Ingrid E Wertz; Mark R Lackner; Michelle A Nannini; Deepak Sampath; Luis Schwarz; Henry Charles Manning; Mohammed Noor Tantawy; Carlos L Arteaga; Richard A Heyman; Peter J Rix; Lori Friedman; Nicholas D Smith; Ciara Metcalfe; Jeffrey H Hager Journal: Elife Date: 2016-07-13 Impact factor: 8.140
Authors: Christina Bjerre; Lena Vinther; Kirstine C Belling; Sidse Ø Würtz; Rachita Yadav; Ulrik Lademann; Olga Rigina; Khoa Nguyen Do; Henrik J Ditzel; Anne E Lykkesfeldt; Jun Wang; Henrik Bjørn Nielsen; Nils Brünner; Ramneek Gupta; Anne-Sofie Schrohl; Jan Stenvang Journal: Tumour Biol Date: 2013-07-24
Authors: Jiawang Liu; Shilong Zheng; Shanchun Guo; Changde Zhang; Qiu Zhong; Qiang Zhang; Peng Ma; Elena V Skripnikova; Melyssa R Bratton; Thomas E Wiese; Guangdi Wang Journal: ACS Med Chem Lett Date: 2016-11-29 Impact factor: 4.345
Authors: Pedram Heidari; Francis Deng; Shadi A Esfahani; Alicia K Leece; Timothy M Shoup; Neil Vasdev; Umar Mahmood Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2015-01-21 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Jiawang Liu; Shilong Zheng; Victoria L Akerstrom; Chester Yuan; Youning Ma; Qiu Zhong; Changde Zhang; Qiang Zhang; Shanchun Guo; Peng Ma; Elena V Skripnikova; Melyssa R Bratton; Antonio Pannuti; Lucio Miele; Thomas E Wiese; Guangdi Wang Journal: J Med Chem Date: 2016-08-29 Impact factor: 7.446