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

Poster Display session 2

3565 - Real-World 1-Year Survival Analysis of Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer with Liver or Lung Metastasis Treated with Eribulin, Gemcitabine or Capecitabine

Date

29 Sep 2019

Session

Poster Display session 2

Topics

Tumour Site

Breast Cancer

Presenters

Shayma Kazmi

Citation

Annals of Oncology (2019) 30 (suppl_5): v104-v142. 10.1093/annonc/mdz242

Authors

S.M. Kazmi1, D. Chatterjee2, K. Alexis3, D. Raju4, E. Wang5, R.L. Knoth6, R.S. Hauser1, P.A. Kaufman7

Author affiliations

  • 1 Oncology, Cancer Treatment Centers of America, 19124 - Philadelphia/US
  • 2 Health Economics Outcomes Research And Real World Evidence, Eisai Inc., 07677 - Woodcliff Lake/US
  • 3 Medical Affairs, Eisai Inc., 07677 - Woodcliff Lake/US
  • 4 Statistics, Cancer Treatment Centers of America Global, Inc., 33487 - Boca Raton/US
  • 5 Medical Affairs, Formerly with Eisai Inc., 07677 - Woodcliff Lake/US
  • 6 Health Economics Outcomes Research, Eisai Inc., 07677 - Woodcliff Lake/US
  • 7 Medicine, Division Of Hematology/oncology, University of Vermont Cancer Center, 05401 - Burlington/US

Resources

Login to access the resources on OncologyPRO.

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

Abstract 3565

Background

Pooled analyses from 2 phase III trials of patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (mBC) treated with eribulin (E) versus other chemotherapy showed improved overall survival (OS) favoring E. Subsequent subgroup analyses, including pts with visceral metastases (VM), also showed improved OS when treated with E. Current 3rd line mBC chemotherapy options include E, gemcitabine (G) and capecitabine (C), among others. This study evaluated 1-year (yr) OS in a real world setting among mBC pts with VM treated with E, G, or C in a US cancer center network.

Methods

This retrospective study investigated pts with mBC with biopsy proven VM (liver and/or lung), treated with E, G, or C in 3rd line chemotherapy from 1/1/2012 to 11/1/2018. Electronic health records and cancer registry data were used to detect differences in OS (number of mons from start of 3rd line until death). Univariate and multivariate analyses of 1-yr survival between E, G, and C were conducted using Kaplan Meier (KM) and Cox proportional hazard (CPH) models respectively.

Results

Of 1,828 mBC pts, 1,417 had VM, and 443 (27.5% triple negative, 13.7% HER2+ and 51.9% ER+/PR+) received 3rd line therapy with E = 229 (51.7%), G = 134 (30.2%) or C = 80(18.1%). On average, E, G, and C pts did not differ by age, ethnicity, BMI or ECOG score (categorized as good [0-1] and poor [>2]), but E pts had higher mean income compared to G or C. 1-yr KM survival analyses included 370 pts (n = 195 E, 117 G, and 58 C) with at least 1-yr follow up. 150 patients (45% E, 33% G, and 41% C) were alive at the end of 1-yr. Survival curves between E, G, and C differed significantly (Logrank p < 0.05; Wilcoxon p < 0.05). Censored median survival of E pts was 9.75 mons compared to 6.95 for G (p < 0.05) and 7.48 for C pts, respectively. CPH analysis adjusted for age, ethnicity, ECOG score, BMI, and adverse events showed significant survival benefit for E pts compared to G (HR = 0.71, p < 0.05), but no significant differences between E vs C or C vs G pts.

Conclusions

This real-world 1-yr survival analysis of pts with mBC and VM demonstrated significantly better OS for pts receiving E as compared to G, and a trend favoring OS for patients receiving E in comparison to C.

Clinical trial identification

Editorial acknowledgement

Legal entity responsible for the study

Eisai Inc.

Funding

Eisai Inc.

Disclosure

S.M. Kazmi: Speaker Bureau / Expert testimony: Eisai, Takeda, Lilly, Merck; Advisory / Consultancy: Merck, Takeda. E. Wang: Non-remunerated activity/ies, Eisai employee at the time of research: Eisai. R.S. Hauser: Research grant / Funding (institution): Eisai. P.A. Kaufman: Advisory / Consultancy, Research grant / Funding (institution), research grant support, and consulting fees: Eisai. All other 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.