• Non ci sono risultati.

La scelta della terapia di I linea: ruolo degli inibitori di CDK4/6

N/A
N/A
Protected

Academic year: 2022

Condividi "La scelta della terapia di I linea: ruolo degli inibitori di CDK4/6"

Copied!
25
0
0

Testo completo

(1)

CONVEGNO NAZIONALE AIOM GIOVANI

Perugia, 7 luglio 2017

Eva Blondeaux

La scelta della terapia di I linea:

ruolo degli inibitori di CDK4/6

Tutor: Dott.ssa C. Bighin

Ospedale Policlinico San Martino

Genova

(2)

Meccanismo d’azione degli inibitori delle cicline

Murphy The Oncol 2015

(3)

Studi clinici con inibitori delle cicline

• PALBOCICLIB:

– + letrozolo  Paloma 1

1,2

– + letrozolo  Paloma 2

3

– + fulvestrant  Paloma 3

4

• RIBOCICLIB

– + letrozolo  Monaleesa-2

5

– + fulvestrant  Monaleesa-3 (on going)

– + tamoxifen o NSAI + goserelin  Monaleesa-7 (on going)

• AMEBACICLIB

– + fulvestrant  Monarch-2

6

– + letrozolo o anastrozolo  Monarch-3 (on going)

1 Finn Lancet 2015; 2 Finn ASCO Ann Meet 2017 ; 3 Finn NEJM 2016; 4 Cristofanilli Lancet Oncol 2016;

5 Hortobagyi NEJM 2016; 6 Sledge JCO 2017

(4)

PALBOCICLIB – Paloma 1

- HR +, HER2 – aBC or mBC

Letrozole + Palbociclib

Letrozole

34 pts

32 pts

Primary endpoints: PFS

Secondary endpoints: ORR, CBR, OS, safety

Cohort 1 Cohort 2

- HR +, HER2 – aBC or mBC - amplif.

cyclin D1 or loss of p16

Letrozole + Palbociclib

Letrozole

50 pts

49 pts

Total pts = 165 pts (cohort 1 +2)

Finn Lancet 2015

fase II

(5)

PALBOCICLIB – Paloma 1 Basal characteristics

Finn Lancet 2015

(6)

PALBOCICLIB – Paloma 1 Results: PFS

Finn Lancet 2015

PFS=20.2 vs 10.2 months

(HR=0.49; p=0.0004)

Median follow up: 29.6 months

(7)

PALBOCICLIB – Paloma 1 Results: OS

Finn Lancet 2015

(8)

PALBOCICLIB – Paloma 1 Results: OS – ASCO 2017

Finn Abstract ASCO 2017

Median follow up: 64.7 months

(9)

PALBOCICLIB – Paloma 1 Results: OS – ASCO 2017

Finn Abstract ASCO 2017

(10)

PALBOCICLIB – Paloma 2

- Post-menopausal;

- HR+ HER2- mBC

- (neo)adj NSAI allowed if DFI<12 months

Letrozole + Palbociclib

Letrozole + Placebo

444 pts

222 pts

Primary endpoints: PFS

Secondary endpoints: OS, ORR, CBR, duration of response, patient-reported outcome, pharmacokinetic effects, safety and tissue biomarker assessment

2:1

Finn NEJM 2016

fase III

(11)

PALBOCICLIB – Paloma 2 Basal characteristics

Finn NEJM 2016

(12)

PALBOCICLIB – Paloma 2 Results: PFS

Finn NEJM 2016

PFS=24.8 vs 14.5 months

(HR=0.58; p<0.001) Median follow up: 23 months

(13)

PALBOCICLIB – Paloma 3

- Pre and post- menopausal;

- HR+ HER2- mBC

- Endocrine resistant BC*

- 1 previous CT for mBC allowed

Falodex+ Palbociclib

Faslodex+ Placebo

347 pts

174 pts

Primary endpoints: PFS

Secondary endpoints: ORR, CBR, OS, duration of response, patient-reported outcome, pharmacokinetic, safety and tissue biomarker assessment

2:1

Cristofanilli Lancet Oncol 2016

*Progression after ET with IA if post-menop or Tam if pre-menop while or within 1 months after treatment in the advanced setting, or while or within 12 months from adj therapy

fase III

(14)

PALBOCICLIB – Paloma 3 Basal characteristic

Cristofanilli Lancet Oncol 2016

(15)

PALBOCICLIB – Paloma 3 Results: PFS

Cristofanilli Lancet Oncol 2016

PFS= 9.5 vs 4.6 months

(HR=0.46; p<0.0001)

Median follow up: 8.9 months

(16)

RIBOCICLIB – Monaleesa 2

- Post-menopausal;

- HR+ HER2- mBC

- no prior therapy for mBC - (neo)adj NSAI allowed if

DFI>12 months

Letrozolo + Ribociclib

Letrozolo + Placebo

334 pts

334 pts

Primary endpoints: PFS

Secondary endpoints: OS, ORR, CBR, safety and QoL

1:1

Hortobagyi NEJM 2016

fase III

(17)

RIBOCICLIB – Monaleesa 2 Basal characteristic

Hortobagyi NEJM 2016

(18)

RIBOCICLIB – Monaleesa 2 Results: PFS

Median follow up: 15.3 months

Hortobagyi NEJM 2016

PFS= not reached vs 14.7

months (HR=0.56: p<0.001)

(19)

AMEBACICLIB – Monarch 2

- Pre and post- menopausal;

- HR+ HER2- mBC

- PD during (neo)adj ET,

<12 months from

(neo)adj ET or PD during 1

st

line ET

Fulvestrant + Amebaciclib

Fulvestrant + Placebo

446 pts

223 pts

Primary endpoints: PFS

Secondary endpoints: ORR, duration of response, CBR, safety, tolerability, OS, QoL and pharmacokinetics

2:1

Sledge JCO 2017

fase III

no prior CT allowed

(20)

AMEBACICLIB – Monarch 2 Basal characteristics

Sledge JCO 2017

(21)

AMEBACICLIB – Monarch 2 Results: PFS

Median follow up: 19.5 months

Sledge JCO 2017

PFS= 16.4 vs 9.3 months

(HR=0.55; p<0.001)

(22)

…comparing the three…

Results

PALOMA 1 84 +81 pts (%)

PALOMA 2 444+222 pts (%)

PALOMA 3 347 + 174 pts (%)

MONALEESA 2 334 + 334 pts (%)

MONARCH 2 446 + 223 pts (%)

DFI

 Stage IV de novo

 > 12 months

 < 12 months

44 (52)

25 (30) 15 (18)

167 (37.6)

178 (40.1) 99 (22.3)

- 114 (34.1)

216 (64.7) 4 (1.2)

-

- (8.8) Prior Treatment

 Adjuvant ET

• AI

• Tam

 Adjuvant CT

 CT for MBC

27 (32) 14 (17) 24 (29) 34 (40)

-

249 (56.1) 122 (27.5) 209 (47.1) 213 (48)

-

- - - 139 (40) 113 (33)

175 (52.4) 100 (30) 140 (41.9) 146 (43.7)

-

267 (59.9) - Site of disease

• Visceral

• Non-visceral

37 (44) 47 (56)

214 (48.2) 230 (51.8)

206 (59) 168 (41)

197 (59) 137 (41)

245 (54.9) 198 (44.4)

PFS (months) 20.2 vs 10.2 (HR=0.49;

p=0.0004)

24.8 vs 14.5 (HR=0.58;

p<0.001)

9.5 vs 4.6 (HR=0.46;

p<0.0001)

not reached vs 14.7 (HR=0.56:

p<0.001)

16.4 vs 9.3 (HR=0.55;

p<0.001) OS (months) 37.5 vs 34.5

(HR=0.897;

p=0.28)

- - - -

(23)

…comparing the three…

side effects

PALOMA 1 84 +81 pts (%)

PALOMA 2 444+222 pts (%)

PALOMA 3 347 + 174 pts (%)

MONALEESA 2 334 + 334 pts (%)

MONARCH 2 446 + 223 pts (%)

Neutropenia (G3-4)

45 (54) vs 1 (1)

295 (66.5) vs 3 (1.4)

123 (65) vs 1 (1)

198 (59.3) vs 3 (0.9)

117 (26.5) vs 4 (1.7) Leucopenia

(G3-4)

16 (19) vs 0

110 (24.8) vs 0

95 (28) vs 2 (2)

70 (21) vs 2 (0.6)

39 (8.8) vs 0 Fatigue

(G1-2)

30 (36) vs 17 (22)

166 (37.4) vs 61 (27.5)

127 (37) vs 47 (27)

122 (36.5) vs 99 (30.0)

176 (39.9) vs 60 (26.9)

Anemia (G1-2)

24 (29) vs 4 (5.0)

107 (24.1) vs 20 (9.0)

86 (25) vs 16 (9)

62 (18.6) vs 15 (4.5)

128 (29) vs 8 (3.6) Alopecia

(G1-2)

18 (22) vs 2 (3.0)

146 (32.9) vs 35 (15.8)

58 (17) vs 11 (6)

111 (33.2) vs 51 (15.5)

69 (15.6) vs 4 (1.8) Diarrhea

(G3-4)

3 (4) vs 0

6 (1.4) vs 3 (1.4)

0 vs 1 (1)

4 (1.2) vs 3 (0.9)

59 (13.4) vs 1 (0.4) AST/ALT

increase (G1-2)

- - 15 (4)

vs 5 (3)

52 (15.6) vs 13 (3.9)

59 (13.4) vs 12 (5.4) Allungamento

QTc >480 msec

- - 1 (<1) 11 (3.3) -

(24)

Indicazioni attuali in Italia

• Palbociclib disponibile in fascia CNN.

• Nel nostro centro seguiamo le seguenti indicazioni:

– in prima linea in associazione a Letrozolo per le pazienti stadio IV de novo o per le pazienti con DFI>12 mesi

– in prima linea in associazione a Fulvestrant per le pazienti con DFI<12 mesi

– in seconda linea in associazione a Fulvestrant per le pazienti in PD dopo prima linea con IA

• Ribociclib e Amebaciclib ancora non disponibili

• Ribociclib utilizzabile dai centri che partecipano allo studio

COMPLEEMENT

(25)

Domande ancora aperte…

• Quale terapia per la paziente con solo metastasi non viscerali e/o malattia limitata?

– E’ necessario per forza utilizzare gli inibitori di cicline?

– Il fulvestrant in monoterapia è un’alternativa? (Studio FALCON:

nelle pazienti senza malattia viscerale PFS di 22.3 mesi)

• Le pazienti in premenopausa si considerano come quelle in postmenopausa?

• Quale terapia a progressione dopo inibitori di cicline?

– nuova terapia endocrina (everolimus?) – chemioterapia?

– inibitori cicline «beyond progression» con cambio

ormonoteraopia o eventuale cambio inibitori cicline?

Riferimenti

Documenti correlati

Pur avendo seguito lo sviluppo dell’iniziativa solo dall’esterno, in quanto promotrice della stessa e Coordinatrice del Corso, posso affermare che l’organizzazione

Our first applications of patient autoidentification in Oxford have used bar coded wristbands worn by inpa- tients to support point of care testing for blood glucose with handheld

Moreover, consistent with the hypothesis that cortical DA measured by microdialysis originates from noradrenergic terminals, the D2 receptor agonist quinpirole, both given

In patients with MIKA or normal karyotype, maturation of erythroid cells, though morphologically abnormal, was quantitatively pre- served and early erythroblasts never

Conseguentemente è possibile prevedere il ruolo che la variazione della composizione chimica delle acque, eventualmente legata a cambiamenti climatici o a modifiche delle politiche

ECD-Her2 binding was promoted through the incubation of the antibody/ nanobody nanopatches with a solution containing recombinant protein at different concentrations in PBS

The observed non-Markovian behavior at the full-sequence scale can be seen as the consequence of a reduction in the state space: the full state space, consisting in the twenty

WHO’s unique convening role at the global level provides a vehicle for improving patient safety and managing risk in health care through inter- national collaboration, engagement