Efficacy of Oral SERDs in the treatment of ER+, HER2 - metastatic breast cancer, a stratified analysis of the ESR1 wild type and mutant subgroups

BACKGROUND

Oral SERDs are a novel drug class that have been developed to counteract resistance due to ESR1 mutations. Several SERDs have emerged from phase 2 and 3 trials, with the FDA limiting approval for Elacestrant to patients with ESR1mt tumours despite PFS benefit in the overall population. However, questions remain on whether patients with ESR1wt tumours stand to benefit from oral SERDs.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Manuscripts and conference presentations of Randomised Controlled Trials were extracted after a systematic search of Embase, PubMed and Cochrane from inception until January 21,2023. RCTs investigating the efficacy of oral SERDs versus endocrine therapy for ER positive, HER2 negative advanced breast cancer, and which reported the Kaplan Meier (KM) curves of PFS in the overall and ESR1 mutant (ESR1mt) population were selected. A graphical reconstructive algorithm was applied to estimate time-to-event outcomes from reported KM curves in all overall and ESR1mt cohorts. A bipartite matching algorithm, KMSubtraction, was used to derive survival data for unreported (ESR1wt) subgroups. An individual patient data (IPD) meta-analysis was then pursued, pooling data by ESR1 mutation status in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Cochrane Guidelines for IPD.

RESULTS

The randomized clinical trials ACELERA, AMEERA-3, EMERALD and SERENA-2 were included, totalling 1290 patients. In the pooled analysis of the overall cohort, PFS benefit was observed with oral SERDs when compared with treatment of physicians choice (TPC) (HR 0.783, 95%CI 0.681-0.900, p<0.001). In the ESR1mt subgroup, oral SERDs demonstrated improved PFS (HR 0.557, 95%CI 0.440-0.705, p<0.001) compared to TPC. In the ESR1wt subgroup, oral SERDs demonstrated no significant PFS benefit (HR 0.944, 95%CI 0.783-1.138, p=0.543) when compared to TPC.

CONCLUSIONS

The results of this IPD meta-analysis suggests that PFS benefit in the overall population is mainly driven by the ESR1mt subgroup.

Survival rates and safety associated with chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery and chemoradiotherapy alone for patients with T4 esophageal cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The optimal treatment approach for T4 esophageal cancer is not well established. We aimed to perform a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the survival rates and safety of chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery (CRT-S) and chemoradiotherapy alone (CRT) in patients with T4 N_any M0 esophageal cancer.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched databases for eligible prospective or retrospective studies. The outcomes of interest were overall survival (OS) at 1, 3 and 5 years, treatment-related fistula formation and mortality rates. Meta-analyses were performed using the random effects models separately for studies evaluating CRT-S and CRT. Subgroup analyses were performed based on histology, radiation dose, chemotherapy regimen and duration of the interval between CRT and surgery.

RESULTS

We identified 23 studies including 1,119 patients with predominantly squamous cell carcinoma (93%) and adenocarcinoma (3%) histology. The OS rates of patients receiving CRT-S were 65%, 36% and 20% at 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively. The OS rates of patients receiving CRT were 30%, 11% and 10% at 1, 3 and 5 years, respectively. Treatment-related fistula formation rates were 4% for CRT-S and 9% for CRT. Treatment-related mortality rates were 3% for both groups. Subgroup analyses showed that the interval of >2 months between CRT and surgery was associated with significantly improved OS rates at 1, 3 and 5 years.

CONCLUSION

Chemoradiotherapy is an efficacious treatment approach for T4 esophageal cancer, with clinically acceptable rates of treatment-related fistula formation and mortality. Tri-modality approach with surgery can be considered in carefully selected patients. Our study findings should be interpreted with caution due to the lack of high-quality evidence. Randomized controlled trials are warranted to confirm these findings.

Prophylactic irradiation of tracts in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials

INTRODUCTION

The role of prophylactic irradiation of tracts (PIT) to prevent tumor seeding at the site of a diagnostic or therapeutic intervention in patients with malignant pleural mesothelioma (MPM) is controversial. This study aimed to determine the efficacy of PITs in preventing procedure tract metastases (PTM) after a chest wall procedure in MPM.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched various databases from inception date to April 2020 for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing PIT with no PIT in patients who had a chest wall procedure for MPM. We assessed the risk of bias of individual RCT using the RoB2 tool. The primary outcome was the occurrence of PTM. Meta-analysis was performed using random-effects model. We employed the GRADE approach to assess the certainty of the evidence.

RESULTS

We identified five RCTs including 737 patients. Two RCTs had a low risk of bias. PIT was associated with a significant reduction in the odds of PTM (odd ratio, 0.55; 95 % confidence interval, 0.32 to 0.95; P-value = 0.03; I² = 13 %; GRADE: moderate certainty). One RCT reported no difference in overall survival outcome with the use of PIT. None of the RCTs performed subgroup analyses. Sensitivity analyses showed similar results when limited to RCTs with low risk of bias.

CONCLUSION

PIT significantly reduces the occurrence of PTM in patients with MPM who had a diagnostic or therapeutic chest wall procedure.

Applying the ASCO and European Society for Medical Oncology Value Frameworks to Nasopharyngeal Cancer Treatments: Is Adding Induction Chemotherapy or Adjuvant Chemotherapy to Concurrent Chemoradiotherapy Worthwhile?

PURPOSE

To determine and compare the incremental clinical benefit (ICB) and costs of induction chemotherapy (IC) when added to concurrent chemoradiotherapy (CCRT), concurrent chemotherapy (CC) when added to radiotherapy (RT), and CC plus adjuvant chemotherapy (AC) when added to RT for locally advanced nasopharyngeal cancer (LA-NPC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We searched phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that reported overall survival benefit with the use of IC, CC, and CC + AC in LA-NPC. We quantified the ICB using the ASCO and European Society for Medical Oncology (ESMO) value frameworks. We calculated the incremental drug costs in US dollars using the lowest average wholesale price reported in the Lexicomp drug database.

RESULTS

We identified three RCTs on IC, three RCTs on CC, and four RCTs on CC + AC. The ICB was judged to be grade A based on the ESMO framework. The ASCO Net Health Benefit score ranged from 17.43 to 57.39. The incremental drug costs ranged from $133.46 to $626.14. There were no statistically significant differences in the mean Net Health Benefit scores (39.37 for IC v 37.61 for CC v 33.98 for CC + AC; P = .89) and costs ($383 for IC v $253 for CC v $460 for CC + AC; P = .27) between the three approaches. There was no statistically significant correlation between ICB and costs.

CONCLUSION

The magnitudes of ICB and incremental drug costs of adding of IC to CCRT, CC to RT, and CC + AC to RT for LA-NPC are not significantly different.