Bonnefoi H.,French Institute of Health and Medical Research |
Grellety T.,French Institute of Health and Medical Research |
Tredan O.,Center Leon Berard |
Saghatchian M.,Breast Cancer Unit |
And 18 more authors.
Annals of Oncology | Year: 2016
Background: Several expression array studies identified molecular apocrine breast cancer (BC) as a subtype that expresses androgen receptor (AR) but not estrogen receptor a. We carried out a multicentre single-arm phase II trial in women with AR-positive, estrogen, progesterone receptor and HER2-negative (triple-negative) metastatic or inoperable locally advanced BC to assess the efficacy and safety of abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone. Patients and methods: Patients with a metastatic or locally advanced, centrally reviewed, triple-negative and AR-positive (≥10% by immunohistochemistry, IHC) BC were eligible. Any number of previous lines of chemotherapy was allowed. AA (1000 mg) was administered once a day with prednisone (5 mg) twice a day until disease progression or intolerance. The primary end point was clinical benefit rate (CBR) at 6 months defined as the proportion of patients presenting a complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease (SD) ≥6 months. Secondary end points were objective response rate (ORR), progression-free survival (PFS) and safety. Results: One hundred and forty-six patients from 27 centres consented for IHC central review. Of the 138 patients with sufficient tissue available, 53 (37.6%) were AR-positive and triple-negative, and 34 of them were included from July 2013 to December 2014. Thirty patients were eligible and evaluable for the primary end point. The 6-month CBR was 20.0% [95% confidence interval (CI) 7.7%-38.6%], including 1 CR and 5 SD ≥6 months, 5 of them still being under treatment at the time of analysis (6.4+, 9.2+, 14.5+, 17.6+, 23.4+ months). The ORR was 6.7% (95% CI 0.8%-22.1%). The median PFS was 2.8 months (95% CI 1.7%-5.4%). Fatigue, hypertension, hypokalaemia and nausea were the most common drug-related adverse events; the majority of them being grade 1 or 2. Conclusions: AA plus prednisone treatment is beneficial for some patients with molecular apocrine tumours and five patients are still on treatment. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01842321. © The Author 2016.
Barbieri A.,Institute Regional du Cancer Montpellier ICM Val dAurelle |
Barbieri A.,Montpellier University |
Anota A.,National Quality of Life in Oncology Platform |
Anota A.,Methodological and Quality of Life Unit in Oncology EA 3181 |
And 9 more authors.
Medical Decision Making | Year: 2015
Introduction. A new longitudinal statistical approach was compared to the classical methods currently used to analyze health-related quality-of-life (HRQoL) data. The comparison was made using data in patients with metastatic pancreatic cancer. Methods. Three hundred forty-Two patients from the PRODIGE4/ACCORD 11 study were randomly assigned to FOLFIRINOX versus gemcitabine regimens. HRQoL was evaluated using the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) QLQ-C30. The classical analysis uses a linear mixed model (LMM), considering an HRQoL score as a good representation of the true value of the HRQoL, following EORTC recommendations. In contrast, built on the item response theory (IRT), our approach considered HRQoL as a latent variable directly estimated from the raw data. For polytomous items, we extended the partial credit model to a longitudinal analysis (longitudinal partial credit model [LPCM]), thereby modeling the latent trait as a function of time and other covariates. Results. Both models gave the same conclusions on 11 of 15 HRQoL dimensions. HRQoL evolution was similar between the 2 treatment arms, except for the symptoms of pain. Indeed, regarding the LPCM, pain perception was significantly less important in the FOLFIRINOX arm than in the gemcitabine arm. For most of the scales, HRQoL changes over time, and no difference was found between treatments in terms of HRQoL. Discussion. The use of LMM to study the HRQoL score does not seem appropriate. It is an easy-To-use model, but the basic statistical assumptions do not check. Our IRT model may be more complex but shows the same qualities and gives similar results. It has the additional advantage of being more precise and suitable because of its direct use of raw data. © The Author(s) 2016.