编者按:2016年第10届欧洲乳腺癌大会(EBCC)于荷兰阿姆斯特丹时间3月9日开幕,《肿瘤瞭望》撷取会议重点摘要,邀请中国医学科学院肿瘤医院内科袁芃教授给予点评,以加深读者对研究的见解。
在CONFIRM研究数据公布后,氟维斯群500mg(F500)成为绝经后雌激素受体阳性的局部晚期或转移性乳腺癌(AMBC)人群的标准治疗之一。来自日本的一项回顾性研究,目的在于探索影响此类人群疗效的临床因素和治疗时机。本研究共纳入了日本16家中心的1072名患者。F500至治疗失败时间(TTF)为主要研究终点。分析的指标包括年龄、病理类型、分期、肿瘤分级、是否有内脏转移、PR状态、HER-2状态、确诊AMBC到开始F500治疗的时间间隔(<3年vs. ≥3年)、F500治疗的线数(1线vs.2线vs.3线vs.四线及以上)和既往是否化疗。
在可以分析疗效的1031例(占全组的96.2%)患者中,内脏转移者占比32.4%,HER-2阳性患者21.5%;氟维斯群用于一线、二线、三线和四线及以上的比例为2.0%,22.6%,26.8%和48.6%。F500的中位失败时间为5.4个月(4.7-5.7个月)。在多因素分析中,确诊AMBC至开始F500治疗的时间间隔≥3年(HR=0.60,P<0.001)、更早开始F500治疗(≥四线 vs.三线 vs. 二线vs. 一线; HR=0.83, 95%CI=0.70~0.84; P<0.001)以及既往未使用过化疗(HR=0.69, P<0.001)同更长的TTF相关。
点评:
本研究是一项回顾性临床分析研究,反映了目前日本人群应用F500的临床状况,同时寻找使用氟维斯群500mg疗效最优的临床人群。整组患者的中位TTF为5.4个月,低于CONFIRM研究中F500组的PFS(6.5个月),可能与两个研究的入组人群及既往治疗不同有关。
研究的结果最终筛选出的3个临床条件中,其中2个与F500的选择时机有关,另1个与患者肿瘤的生物学行为有关。首先,本研究结果提示:对于未经过化疗、早期开始治疗的患者效果越好。从入组人群的基线状态可以看出,在该组晚期乳腺癌治疗中,近半数的患者在4线或以上选择氟维斯群500mg的治疗,而一线患者仅占2.0%;氟维斯群在治疗顺序中位置偏后。多线治疗后(包括化疗和内分泌治疗)的患者,体内肿瘤往往出现多药耐药性,再次治疗的效果一般低于较前的治疗,这一点在无论内分泌治疗还是化疗方面都适用。II期FIRST研究的总生存分析结果显示,同阿那曲唑相比,氟维斯群500mg一线治疗可显著延长患者总生存时间。而III期FALCON研究采用与FIRST研究相同的设计,将对这一结果进行确认。
基于上述结果,在绝经后受体阳性转移性乳腺癌的治疗中,氟维斯群仍仅作为内分泌治疗的二线以后用药。日本的数据也说明,目前临床真正采用F500作为一线内分泌治疗的患者还很有限,还需要有证据级别较高的研究结果的出现,才能增强临床医生对一线治疗疗效的信心。另一方面,本研究结果提示诊断为AMBC至使用F500的时间间隔更长的患者F500治疗后效果更好。该因素更多的是反映了患者肿瘤的生物学行为。在出现复发转移后3年以上开始F500的治疗,从另一个侧面说明这一亚组的患者接受前面的治疗效果尚好,肿瘤进展缓慢,也正是内分泌治疗的优势人群;而对于肿瘤进展较快的患者,在复发转移3年内已接受过多线治疗,即便是换用其他内分泌药物,效果可能仍不佳。
该研究虽然样本量较大,但因为是回顾性研究,患者在某些基线特征可能存在不平衡,在数据分析上有一定局限性,例如,未分析在给予氟维斯群之前,其他内分泌治疗的应用情况以及疗效对后续F500的影响等。因此该研究虽然对临床有一定提示,但数据的证据级别不高,尚不能改变临床实践。
袁芃,教授,长期从事肿瘤内科临床工作,专长于乳腺癌、肺癌、胃肠道肿瘤、头颈部肿瘤及其他内科常见肿瘤的治疗,在乳腺癌的内科治疗和肿瘤耐药方面进行了深入研究。承担和参与了5项国家级、省部级及院级科研项目,参加多项国际多中心临床新药研究,在国家核心期刊发表论文20余篇,参与编写《乳腺癌》《肿瘤内科学手册》等4部专著。担任《中华医学杂志》(英文版)的审稿人。
研究摘要
Search for appropriate treatment strategy using fulvestrant for postmenopausal ER-positive advanced or recurrent breast cancer patients in Japan (JBCRG-C06; Safari)
H. Kawaguchi , N. Masuda , T. Nakayama , K. Aogi , K. Anan , Y. Ito , S. Ohtani , N. Sato , S. Saji , E. Tokunaga , S. Nakamura , Y. Hasegawa , M. Hattori , T. Fujisawa , S. Morita , M. Yamaguchi , T. Yamashita , Y. Yamamoto , S. Ohno , M. Toi
Background: After the CONFIRM trial, fulvestrant 500 mg (F500) became a standard treatment for patients with estrogen receptor positive (ER+) advanced/metastatic breast cancer (AMBC) and progression on hormonal treatment. This retrospective study evaluated the effect of clinical background and treatment line on time to treatment failure (TTF) in patients with AMBC receiving F500 in Japan (UMIN 000015168).
Material and Methods: Patients starting treatment with F500 between Nov 2011 (F500 approval in Japan) and Dec 2014 were registered. The relationship between baseline clinical/pathological factors, treatment line, and TTF (time from start to cessation of F500 treatment for any reason, including toxicity and death) were analyzed (Kaplan–Meier methods). Univariate analysis of TTF data was performed by Cox hazards model using: age, histological type, histological/nuclear grade, visceral-metastases, stage, PgR, HER2, period from AMBC diagnosis to F500 use, treatment line of F500, prior chemotherapy. Hazard ratios (HR), 95% confidence intervals (CI) and p values are reported. All tests were two-sided.
Results: Data for 1072 patients at 16 sites were available; 1031 patients (96.2%) were evaluable for efficacy. Median age was 64yrs; 21.5% had advanced disease; 78.5% recurrent disease; 32.4% visceral metastases. Histology: 82.3% ductal; 4.7% lobular; 13.1% other. Hormonal receptor status: ER+/PgR+ 69.5%; ER+/PgR25.4%; ER+/PgR unknown 5.0%. HER2 status was documented in 909 patients; 21.5% were HER2+. F500 was administered as 1st-line treatment in 2.0%, 2nd-line in 22.6%, 3rd-line in 26.8%, and ≥4th-line in 48.6%. Median follow up was 18.0 months(mo) from F500 treatment (0.1–44.9), median TTF was 5.4mo (4.7–5.7). In the univariate analysis, younger patients (<65yrs vs. ≥65yrs; HR=0.84, 95%CI=0.73–0.96; p=0.009), longer period from AMBC diagnosis to F500 use (<3yrs vs. ≥3yrs; HR=0.87, 95%CI=0.76–1.00; p=0.047), earlier F500 use (≥4thvs. 3rdvs. 2ndvs. 1stline; HR=0.83, 95%CI=0.77–0.90; p<0.001) and no prior chemotherapy (yesvs. no; HR=0.74, 95%CI=0.65–0.84; p<0.001) were associated with longer TTF. Histological type, histological/nuclear grade, visceral metastases, stage, PgR, HER2 did not influence TTF. In the multivariate analysis, longer period from AMBC diagnosis to F500 use (<3yrs vs. ≥3yrs; HR=0.60, 95%CI=0.51–0.70; p<0.001), earlier F500 use (≥4thvs. 3rdvs. 2ndvs. 1st line; HR=0.83, 95%CI=0.70–0.84; p<0.001) and no prior chemotherapy (yesvs. no; HR=0.69, 95%CI=0.60–0.80; p<0.001) were associated with longer TTF. Three patients (0.8%) had severe adverse events.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that F500 is more effective when used as an earlier treatment line for AMBC. F500 efficacy is affected by longer period from AMBC diagnosis to F500 use and no prior chemotherapy, and not affected by HER2 status or presence of visceral metastases.