Oops, you're using an old version of your browser so some of the features on this page may not be displaying properly.

MINIMAL Requirements: Google Chrome 24+Mozilla Firefox 20+Internet Explorer 11Opera 15–18Apple Safari 7SeaMonkey 2.15-2.23

Lunch and Poster Display session

214P - Comparing ribociclib versus palbociclib as a second-line treatment in combination with fulvestrant in metastatic breast cancer: A randomised clinical trial

Date

16 May 2024

Session

Lunch and Poster Display session

Presenters

manar hamed

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2024) 9 (suppl_4): 1-47. 10.1016/esmoop/esmoop103200

Authors

M. hamed1, S.S.A. Shamaa2, A. Eltantawy3, M.A. Elbaiomy4, A. El- Gilany5

Author affiliations

  • 1 Mansoura University - Faculty of Medicine, Mansoura/EG
  • 2 Mansoura University Hospital School of Medicine, Mansoura/EG
  • 3 OCMU - Oncology Center - Mansoura University, Mansoura/EG
  • 4 OCMU - Oncology Center - Mansoura University, 35516 - Mansoura/EG
  • 5 Faculty of medicine mansoura university, elmahalla elkobra/EG

Resources

Login to get immediate access to this content.

If you do not have an ESMO account, please create one for free.

Abstract 214P

Background

CDKIs are approved for treatment of ER+, HER2- advanced breast cancer in the 1st line and subsequent lines in combination with AIs or fulvestrant. Studies showed they extend PFS and OS benefit. The efficacy and toxicity of Palbociclib and Ribociclib were not directly compared and were not assessed in the Egyptian population.

Methods

This is a phase III randomised open label clinical trial that took place at the oncology centre Mansoura university, Egypt. Patients with ER+ HER2- metastatic breast cancer who prgressed on ET were randomised to receive either palbociclib or ribociclib with the combination of fulvestrant. premenopausal women received the LHRH agonist. Toxicity was assessed and graded using CTCAE v5.0. Patients were evaluated clinically for response and toxicity monthly and radiologically by CT/ 3 months.

Results

Both arms had similar baseline characteristics. There was no statistically significant difference in the CBR (58.6% for both arms at 6 months and 13.8% in the palbociclib VS 17.2% in the ribociclib arm at 12 months) or in PFS(13.67 months with palbociclib and 12.69 months with ribociclib). PFS was similar in premenopausal patients in both arms, postmenopausal patients had better survival in the palbociclib arm. Multivariate analysis revealed that postmenopausal 2.85 more likely to survive than premenopausal patients. Also patients with ECOG performance status 2 and 3 are 0.13 and 0.39 less likely to survive compared to patients with PS 1. Dose reduction increased the likelihood of survival 3.36 compared with no dose reduction. Regarding common toxicities there was no statistically significant difference between the two arms. 12% of palbociclib patients and 15.5% of the ribociclib patients had dose reduction due to toxicity. After progression on CDK Is, 12% of the patients in the palbociclib arm received chemotherapy and 24% received everolimus while in the ribociclib arm 13.7% and 34.4% received chemotherapy and everolimus respectively. By the end of follow-up 43.1% in the palbociclib arm and 46.5% of the ribociclib arm progressed, commonly with visceral disease.

Conclusions

Both Ribociclib and palbociclib have similar clinical benefit rate, PFS and toxicity profile.

Clinical trial identification

NCT05670054.

Legal entity responsible for the study

The authors.

Funding

Has not received any funding.

Disclosure

All authors have declared no conflicts of interest.

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.

Customise settings
  • Necessary cookies enable core functionality. The website cannot function properly without these cookies, and you can only disable them by changing your browser preferences.