L Manso1, F Moreno2, R Márquez3, B Castelo4, A Arcediano5, M Arroyo6, A I Ballesteros7, I Calvo8, M J Echarri9, S Enrech10, A Gómez11, R González Del Val12, E López-Miranda13, M Martín-Angulo6, N Martínez-Jañez13, C Olier14, P Zamora4. 1. Hospital Universitario 12 de Octubre, Madrid, Spain. 2. Hospital Universitario Clínico San Carlos, Madrid, Spain. 3. MD Anderson Cancer Center, Madrid, Spain. 4. Hospital Universitario La Paz, Madrid, Spain. 5. Hospital General Universitario de Guadalajara, Guadalajara, Mexico. 6. Hospital Príncipe de Asturias, Alcalá de Henares, Spain. 7. Hospital de la Princesa, Madrid, Spain. 8. Centro Integral Oncológico Clara Campal, Madrid, Spain. 9. Hospital Universitario Severo Ochoa, Leganés, Spain. 10. Hospital Universitario de Getafe, Getafe, Spain. 11. Hospital Universitario de Salamanca, Salamanca, Spain. 12. Hospital Gregorio Marañón, Madrid, Spain. 13. Hospital Ramón y Cajal, Madrid, Spain. 14. Hospital Universitario Fundación Alcorcón, Alcorcón, Spain.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: During clinical practice, it can be challenging, given the lack of response biomarkers, to identify the patients with metastatic breast cancer (mbca) who would benefit most from the addition of bevacizumab to first-line standard chemotherapy. The aim of the present review was to summarize the relevant scientific evidence and to discuss the experience of a group of experts in using bevacizumab to treat mbca. METHODS: A panel of 17 Spanish oncology experts met to discuss the literature and their experience in the use of bevacizumab as first-line treatment for mbca. During the meeting, discussions focused on three main issues: the profile of the patients who could benefit most from bevacizumab, the optimal bevacizumab treatment duration, and the safety profile of bevacizumab. RESULTS: The subset of mbca patients who would benefit the most from the addition of bevacizumab to first-line standard chemotherapy are those with clinically defined aggressive disease. Treatment with bevacizumab should be maintained until disease progression or the appearance of unacceptable toxicity. In the mbca setting, the toxicity profile of bevacizumab is well known and can be managed in clinical practice after adequate training. CONCLUSIONS: This expert group recommends administering bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with clinically aggressive disease.
OBJECTIVE: During clinical practice, it can be challenging, given the lack of response biomarkers, to identify the patients with metastatic breast cancer (mbca) who would benefit most from the addition of bevacizumab to first-line standard chemotherapy. The aim of the present review was to summarize the relevant scientific evidence and to discuss the experience of a group of experts in using bevacizumab to treat mbca. METHODS: A panel of 17 Spanish oncology experts met to discuss the literature and their experience in the use of bevacizumab as first-line treatment for mbca. During the meeting, discussions focused on three main issues: the profile of the patients who could benefit most from bevacizumab, the optimal bevacizumab treatment duration, and the safety profile of bevacizumab. RESULTS: The subset of mbca patients who would benefit the most from the addition of bevacizumab to first-line standard chemotherapy are those with clinically defined aggressive disease. Treatment with bevacizumab should be maintained until disease progression or the appearance of unacceptable toxicity. In the mbca setting, the toxicity profile of bevacizumab is well known and can be managed in clinical practice after adequate training. CONCLUSIONS: This expert group recommends administering bevacizumab as first-line treatment in patients with clinically aggressive disease.
Entities:
Keywords:
Bevacizumab; clinical practice; metastatic breast cancer
Authors: Javier Cortés; Emiliano Calvo; Antonio González-Martín; Shaheenah Dawood; Antonio Llombart-Cussac; Leticia De Mattos-Arruda; Patricia Gómez; Orlando Silva; Edith A Perez; Hope S Rugo; Ana Lluch; Gabriel N Hortobagyi Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2012-08-27 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Toni K Choueiri; Erica L Mayer; Youjin Je; Jonathan E Rosenberg; Paul L Nguyen; Georges R Azzi; Joaquim Bellmunt; Harold J Burstein; Fabio A B Schutz Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2011-01-04 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: I E Smith; J-Y Pierga; L Biganzoli; H Cortés-Funes; C Thomssen; X Pivot; A Fabi; B Xu; D Stroyakovskiy; F A Franke; B Kaufman; P Mainwaring; T Pienkowski; B De Valk; A Kwong; J L González-Trujillo; I Koza; K Petrakova; D Pereira; K I Pritchard Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-09-05 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Ann H Partridge; R Bryan Rumble; Lisa A Carey; Steven E Come; Nancy E Davidson; Angelo Di Leo; Julie Gralow; Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Beverly Moy; Douglas Yee; Shelley B Brundage; Michael A Danso; Maggie Wilcox; Ian E Smith Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2014-09-02 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Shaheenah Dawood; Asim Jamal Shaikh; Thomas A Buchholz; Javier Cortes; Massimo Cristofanilli; Sudeep Gupta; Ana M Gonzalez-Angulo Journal: Cancer Date: 2011-10-05 Impact factor: 6.860
Authors: David W Miles; Arlene Chan; Luc Y Dirix; Javier Cortés; Xavier Pivot; Piotr Tomczak; Thierry Delozier; Joo Hyuk Sohn; Louise Provencher; Fabio Puglisi; Nadia Harbeck; Guenther G Steger; Andreas Schneeweiss; Andrew M Wardley; Andreas Chlistalla; Gilles Romieu Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2010-05-24 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: Harold J Burstein; Yu-Hui Chen; Leroy M Parker; Jennifer Savoie; Jerry Younger; Irene Kuter; Paula D Ryan; Judy E Garber; Helen Chen; Susana M Campos; Lawrence N Shulman; Lyndsay N Harris; Rebecca Gelman; Eric P Winer Journal: Clin Cancer Res Date: 2008-12-01 Impact factor: 12.531
Authors: Faiez Zannad; Wendy Gattis Stough; Bertram Pitt; John G F Cleland; Kirkwood F Adams; Nancy L Geller; Christian Torp-Pedersen; Bridget-Anne Kirwan; Ferenc Follath Journal: Eur Heart J Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 29.983
Authors: M J Engstrøm; S Opdahl; A I Hagen; P R Romundstad; L A Akslen; O A Haugen; L J Vatten; A M Bofin Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2013-07-31 Impact factor: 4.872