Abstract 1891
Background
nab-P monotherapy is approved for 2L treatment (Tx) of MBC. This real-world analysis evaluated comparative effectiveness of 2L nab-P vs Pac in pts with MBC.
Methods
A retrospective cohort study was performed using fully de-identified data from a US electronic medical record platform of 1300 community (non-university based) oncologists. This analysis included pts with MBC who initiated 2L nab-P or Pac monotherapy from 12/1/10 to 4/6/15 (≥ 2 doses of nab-P or Pac required to be included in the analysis). The primary objectives were time to Tx discontinuation (TTD) and time to next Tx (TTNT). Adverse events (AEs) and supportive care were also examined. Subanalyses in pts with hormone receptor–positive (HR+)/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative (HER2−) or triple-negative (TN) MBC were conducted.
Results
This analysis included 411 pts (109 treated with nab-P Tx and 302 with Pac Tx). Pts treated with nab-P were older (mean 61 vs 57 y) and more frequently had HR+ (78% vs 65%) or HER2− (83% vs 70%) disease. Most pts received weekly Tx (Table). Prior use of a taxane or concurrent use of a targeted agent was similar between groups. nab-P was associated with significantly longer TTD vs Pac. TTNT was similar between groups. Pts treated with nab-P had less fatigue, pain, and neuropathy but more nausea and vomiting vs Pac. Antiemetics (IV) and Tx for hydration and allergic reaction were used less with nab-P, and Tx for bone loss and granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) were used less with Pac. In subgroup analyses, TTD was significantly longer with nab-P vs Pac in pts with HR + /HER2− or TN MBC, and TTNT was numerically longer with nab-P vs Pac in pts with HR + /HER2− MBC.
| nab-P n = 109 | Pac n = 302 | Unadjusted P-value | Adjusted P-value | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Overall population | ||||||
| Tx schedule, weekly, n (%) | 90 (83) | 286 (95) | - | - | ||
| TTD, median, mos | 4.5 | 2.8 | < 0.001 | < 0.001 | ||
| TTNT, median, mos | 5.9 | 4.2 | 0.014 | 0.214 | ||
| Any grade AE in > 5% pts, % | ||||||
| Overall | 45.0 | 58.3 | 0.017 | 0.032 | ||
| Anemia | 26.6 | 36.8 | 0.055 | 0.050 | ||
| Neutropenia | 15.6 | 10.6 | 0.167 | 0.245 | ||
| Neuropathy | 4.6 | 13.6 | 0.011 | 0.039 | ||
| Pain | 1.8 | 12.3 | 0.002 | - | ||
| Thrombocytopenia | 7.3 | 3.0 | 0.087 | - | ||
| Nausea + Vomiting | 9.2 | 3.0 | 0.008 | - | ||
| Diarrhea | 2.8 | 7.0 | 0.109 | - | ||
| Dehydration | 6.4 | 3.0 | 0.145 | 0.467 | ||
| Infection | 0.9 | 6.3 | 0.025 | 0.059 | ||
| Fatigue | 0.5 | 5.6 | 0.001 | 0.023 | ||
| Hypersensitivity | 0.0 | 5.6 | 0.009 | - | ||
| Supportive Care doses/pt/100 days | ||||||
| Antimetics | 5.91 | 8.49 | ConclusionsIn this retrospective review, 2L nab-P was associated with significantly longer TTD vs Pac. Pts treated with nab-P had fewer AEs overall. A similar trend in favor of nab-P was shown in pts with HR + /HER2− or TN MBC. Clinical trial identificationThis study is a retrospective analysis, therefore the protocol number and release data is not applicable. Legal entity responsible for the studyMonika Parisi FundingCelgene Corporation DisclosureC. Pelletier, M. Parisi, S. Glück, Q. Ni: Employee of Celgene Corporation. F. Braiteh: AbbVie, ActiveBiotech, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, BMS, BIND, BioMarin, BioTheranostics, BN Therapeutics, BI, Caris, Celgene, Daiichi, Dendreon, Genomic Health, Gilead, GSK, Halozyme, Heron, Eli Lilly, Incyte, Insys, Novartis, Pfizer. Resources from the same sessionZUMA-3: A phase 1/2 multi-center study evaluation the safety and efficacy of KTE-C19 anti-CD19 CAR T cells in adult patients with relapsed/refractory B precursor acute lymphoblastic leukemia (R/R ALL)Presenter: Bijal Shah Session: Poster display Resources: Abstract ZUMA-2: A phase 2 multi-center study evaluating the efficacy of KTE-C19 (Anti-CD19 CAR T cells) in patients with relapsed/refractory Mantle cell lymphoma (R/R MCL)Presenter: Michael Wang Session: Poster Display Resources: Abstract ZUMA-1: A phase 2 multi-center study evaluating anti-CD19 chimeric antigen receptor (CAR) T cells in patients with refractory aggressive non-Hodgkin lymphoma (NHL)Presenter: Sattva Neelapu Session: Poster Display Resources: Abstract Younger age as a prognostic indicator in breast cancer: Correlation between clinical-pathologic factors and miRNAs and long-term follow-upPresenter: Maria Teresa Martinez Session: Poster display Resources: Abstract Window study of the PARP inhibitor rucaparib in patients with primary triple negative or BRCA1/2 related breast cancer (RIO)Presenter: Christy Toms Session: Poster display Resources: Abstract Whole exome sequencing (WES) and RNA sequencing (RNA-seq) in routine clinical practice for colorectal cancer (CRC) and non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) patients (pts)Presenter: Géraldine Perkins Session: Poster display Resources: Abstract What is the optimal annual interpretive volume for a radiologist reading screening mammograms?Presenter: Asli Uluturk Session: Poster display Resources: Abstract What decides breast conservation versus mastectomy in the background of diverse sociocultural environment, an Indian studyPresenter: Poonamalle Padmanabhan Bapsy Session: Poster display Resources: Abstract Waiting time to diagnosis and treatment of the head and neck cancer in four institutions in PortugalPresenter: Ana Castro Session: Poster display Resources: Abstract Wait times for diagnosis and treatment of lung cancer: a single centre experiencePresenter: Catherine Labbe Session: Poster Display Resources: Abstract This site uses cookies. Some of these cookies are essential, while others help us improve your experience by providing insights into how the site is being used. For more detailed information on the cookies we use, please check our Privacy Policy.
| |||