Pierre Heudel1, Suzette Delaloge2, Damien Parent3, Nicolas Madranges4, Christelle Levy5, Florence Dalenc6, Etienne Brain7, Lionel Uwer8, Veronique D'Hondt9, Paule Augereau10, Audrey Mailliez11, Christophe Perrin12, Jean-Sebastien Frenel10, Marie-Paule Sablin7, Marie-Ange Mouret-Reynier13, Thomas Vermeulin14, Jean-Christophe Eymard3, Thierry Petit15, Jean-Marc Ferrero16, Silvia Ilie17, Anthony Goncalves18, GaËlle Chenuc19, Mathieu Robain20, GaËtane Simon20, David Perol21. 1. Medical Oncology Department, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France PierreEtienne.HEUDEL@lyon.unicancer.fr. 2. Medical Oncology Department, Institut Gustave Roussy, Villejuif, France. 3. Medical Oncology Department, Institut Jean Godinot, Reims, France. 4. Medical Oncology Department, Institut Bergonié, Bordeaux, France. 5. Medical Oncology Department, Centre François Baclesse, Caen, France. 6. Medical Oncology Department, Institut Claudius Regaud, IUCT-Oncopole, Toulouse, France. 7. Medical Oncology Department, Institut Curie, Paris, France. 8. Medical Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de Lorraine, Vandoeurvre-lès-Nancy, France. 9. Medical Oncology Department, Institut du Cancer de Montpellier, Parc Euromédecine, Montpellier, France. 10. Medical Oncology Department, Institut de Cancérologie de l'Ouest, Saint-Herblain, France. 11. Medical Oncology Department, Centre Oscar Lambret, Lille, France. 12. Medical Oncology Department, Centre Eugène Marquis, Rennes, France. 13. Medical Oncology Department, Centre Jean Perrin, Clermont-Ferrand, France. 14. Medical Oncology Department, Centre Henri Becquerel, Rouen, France. 15. Medical Oncology Department, Centre Paul Strauss, Strasbourg, France. 16. Medical Oncology Department, Centre Antoine Lacassagne, Nice, France. 17. Medical Oncology Department, Centre Georges-François Leclerc, Dijon, France. 18. Medical Oncology Department, Institut Paoli-Calmettes, Marseille, France. 19. Capionis, Bordeaux, France. 20. Unicancer, Paris, France. 21. Biostatistics Department, Centre Léon Bérard, Lyon, France.
Abstract
BACKGROUND/AIM: Vinorelbine is indicated for use in the treatment of MBC as a single agent or in combination but there is little real world data on this molecule and even less on its oral form. We exploited the Unicancer Epidemiology Strategy Medical-Economics (ESME) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) database to investigate current patterns of use of oral vinorelbine (OV), as well as outcomes of patients receiving this drug. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from women and men treated for MBC between 2008 and 2014 at one of 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centres. The efficacy of OV was evaluated in terms of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and treatment duration. The population and patterns of OV usage were also described. RESULTS: A total of 1806 patients (11% of the ESME MBC database) were included in this analysis. OV was prescribed as monotherapy (46%) or in combination (29%), especially with capecitabine. mainly in later treatment lines. Median PFS was 3.3 months: 2.9 months for single agent, 3.6 months for combination therapy. Median OS was 40.9 months. CONCLUSION: Real-world data offer complementary results to the data from traditional clinical trials, but they concern a much larger population. In this ESME MBC cohort, OV was only prescribed to a small subset of MBC patients. OV was mainly given as single agent to patients with heavily pre-treated MBC; less commonly, it was co-administered with capecitabine or anti-HER2, in earlier lines of therapy. PFS was modest but in line with previous reports. Copyright
BACKGROUND/AIM: Vinorelbine is indicated for use in the treatment of MBC as a single agent or in combination but there is little real world data on this molecule and even less on its oral form. We exploited the Unicancer Epidemiology Strategy Medical-Economics (ESME) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) database to investigate current patterns of use of oral vinorelbine (OV), as well as outcomes of patients receiving this drug. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Data were collected retrospectively from women and men treated for MBC between 2008 and 2014 at one of 18 French Comprehensive Cancer Centres. The efficacy of OV was evaluated in terms of progression-free (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and treatment duration. The population and patterns of OV usage were also described. RESULTS: A total of 1806 patients (11% of the ESME MBC database) were included in this analysis. OV was prescribed as monotherapy (46%) or in combination (29%), especially with capecitabine. mainly in later treatment lines. Median PFS was 3.3 months: 2.9 months for single agent, 3.6 months for combination therapy. Median OS was 40.9 months. CONCLUSION: Real-world data offer complementary results to the data from traditional clinical trials, but they concern a much larger population. In this ESME MBC cohort, OV was only prescribed to a small subset of MBCpatients. OV was mainly given as single agent to patients with heavily pre-treated MBC; less commonly, it was co-administered with capecitabine or anti-HER2, in earlier lines of therapy. PFS was modest but in line with previous reports. Copyright