Analysis of the efficacy and safety of eribulin therapy in patients with HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer pretreated with CDK4/6 inhibitors in real Russian practice
- Authors: Kolyadina I.V.1,2,3,4, Abidova N.R.5, Akopyan A.A.5, Antonova G.V.6, Arapova O.I.6, Bobrova E.A.7, Bolotina L.V.8, Valiakhmetova C.K.9, Vasilevskaya A.V.10, Vladimirova L.Y.11, Volkonskiy M.V.5, Ganshina I.P.2, Gudkova I.E.12, Dergunov A.S.13, Evstigneeva I.V.13, Egurenkova V.S.7, Emshanov A.V.14, Zhukova L.G.7, Zueva E.V.15, Karabina E.V.16, Kolokolov J.J.17, Kuzmicheva S.V.7, Kuchevskaya O.A.6, Luev I.A.5, Maistrenko K.S.6, Markizova E.V.6, Marfutov V.V.7, Medvedev S.P.18, Merzlikina Y.I.7, Nersesova T.A.15, Ovchinnikova E.G.19, Orlova S.A.9, Samaneva N.Y.11, Stativko O.A.15, Storozhakova A.E.11, Stroyakovskiy D.L.5, Sultanbaev A.V.9, Tekeeva A.I.20, Fadeeva N.V.21, Fedorova A.N.15, Shalaeva O.M.22, Shangina I.A.6, Shirokova O.N.23, Shumskikh A.R.24, Yakubova M.Z.10
-
Affiliations:
- Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education
- Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
- Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology
- Moscow City Oncological Hospital №62
- City Clinical Hospital №40
- Loginov Moscow Clinical Research Center
- Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of National Medical Research Radiological Centre
- Republican Clinical Oncological Dispensary
- Moscow Regional Oncological Dispensary
- National Medical Research Center of Oncology
- Troitsk City Hospital
- Tver Regional Clinical Oncological Dispensary
- Oncology Center
- City Clinical Oncological Hospital №1
- Tula Regional Oncological Dispensary
- Botkin City Clinical Hospital
- Treatment and Rehabilitation Center
- Nizhny Novgorod Regional Clinical Oncological Dispensary
- Medical Center for Rehabilitation
- Chelyabinsk Regional Clinical Center of Oncology and Nuclear Medicine
- Perm Regional Oncological Dispensary
- Sverdlovsk Regional Oncological Dispensary
- Orenburg Regional Clinical Oncological Dispensary
- Issue: Vol 23, No 1 (2021)
- Pages: 68-76
- Section: CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
- Submitted: 07.05.2021
- Accepted: 07.05.2021
- Published: 19.05.2021
- URL: https://modernonco.orscience.ru/1815-1434/article/view/70308
- DOI: https://doi.org/10.26442/18151434.2021.1.200769
- ID: 70308
Cite item
Abstract
Relevance. Data on the efficacy of endocrine and chemotherapy regimens in patients with hormone-resistant metastatic breast cancer (mBC) after progression with CDK4/6 inhibitors are limited; the search for an effective therapy regimen in this clinical situation is an urgent task of clinical oncology.
Aim. Evaluate the efficacy and safety of eribulin therapy in patients with HR+/HER2- mBC after progression with CDK4/6 inhibitors; compare the results of the Russian study and the EMPOWER observational study in the USA.
Materials and methods. The Russian observational study included 54 patients (pts) with HR+/HER2- mBC, who were treated with eribulin after CDK4/6 inhibitors in 24 Russian Cancer hospitals. The median age of pts was 56 years; 75.9% of them had recurrent BC, 24.1% – de novo BC stage IV; 51.9% of pts had progression with CDK4/6 inhibitors in the first 6 months of therapy (primary endocrine resistance); 48.1% of patients had progression in the period from 6 to 38 months; 89.1% had visceral site of metastases (liver MTS – 65.5%, lung MTS – 52.8%, brain MTS in 7.5%). Eribulin was used after anthracyclines and taxanes in 94.4% of cases. The efficacy and safety of eribulin therapy in patients with HR+/HER2- mBC after progression with CDK4/6 inhibitors was studied, as well as subgroup analysis according to age, sites of metastasis, and previously treatment options.
Results. Eribulin was prescribed in the standard regimen of 1.4 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8, the interval between cycles was 21 days, the number cyclys of chemotherapy was 1–44 (median – 8, the mean number of cycles – 10.5). With a median follow-up of 11.5 months (from 3 to 36 months), 30 patients (55.6%) continue therapy with eribulin at present; therapy was cancelled in 24 patients due to progression in 22 (40.7%) cases, and due to intolerable toxicity in 2 (3.7%) patients. The maximum response to eribulin therapy included partial response (in 11 cases, 24.4%), stable disease (in 30 cases, 66.7%) and progression in 4 (8.9%) patients. Median PFS with eribulin therapy was 10.0 months; the 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year PFS were 79.5%, 44.8% and 26.5%, respectively. Eribulin therapy was equally effective in different subgroups (p>0.05) and did not depend on the age of patients, the previously received treatment, the presence of visceral MTS and liver damage. The best response to chemotherapy with eribulin was observed in lung metastases: median PFS 24 months vs 9.1 months, p=0.056. The safety profile was favorable; adverse events were registered in 34.5% of patients, which required dose adjustment in 18.5% of cases. With a median follow-up of 11.5 months, 92.6% of patients remain alive.
Conclusion. Eribulin has demonstrated high efficacy and favorable safety profile in hormone-resistant HER2- mBC in patients with progression when receiving CDK4/6 inhibitor.
Full Text
Breast cancer (BC) is the most common female oncopathology all over the world; a steady increase in morbidity and consistently high mortality rates induce a constant search for new effective regimens for the treatment of this disease. Despite the BC screening and modern treatment strategy about 25–30% of patients with early stages have a further recurrent of the disease; besides, the proportion of the BC de novo stage IV remains very high, both in the world (5–10%) and in the Russian population of women (7.5%) [1–3].
The dominant variant of the disease both in early and advanced stages of BC is the luminal (HR+) HER2-negative tumor subtype, for which multilinear change of endocrine therapy (ET) regimens is a preferred treatment strategy [3–6]. Recent studies show that ET and chemotherapy are equally efficient as initiating treatment for HR+/HER2- metastatic breast cancer (mBC), both in terms of progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS), but at the same time, ET has a more favorable safety profile compared with cytostatic regimens [7]. The emergence of the class of CDK4/6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) has led to the determination of the preferred regimens for the first and second line of therapy; the combined ET with CDK4/6i (palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib) has proven its significant advantage in increasing PFS, OS, disease control, and improvement of the quality of life in patients with HR+/HER2- mBC [8–11]. However, every fifth patient showed disease progression in the first year of combined ET despite the high efficacy of CDK4/6i, and the selection of the further treatment strategy (continuation of ET and which exactly) or the start of chemotherapy (selection of cytostatic agents) becomes a highly challenging task in clinical oncology [12–16].
Among the chemotherapy drugs that are effective in HER2-negative mBC, eribulin stands out, while it does not have cross-resistance with other cytostatic agents and effectively works after progression with anthracyclines and taxanes [17–19]. The efficacy of eribulin in the later lines of treatment for BC allowed suggesting that it might be the therapeutic potential in HR+/HER2-negative mBC pretreated with CDK4/6i.
Aim – assessment of the efficacy and safety of eribulin therapy in patients with HR+/HER2- mBC pretreated with CDK4/6i in real Russian practice.
Materials and methods
The article presents the results of the combined Russian experience in assessing the efficacy and safety of chemotherapy with eribulin in 54 women with HR+/HER2- mBC pretreated with CDK4/6i; the study is observational and includes data on patients from 24 Cancer Hospitals of the Russian Federation. The age of the patients varied from 29 to 79 years (median – 56 years); the diagnosis of HR+/HER2-negative BC was verified (based on biopsy of the primary tumor ± distant metastases) in all cases; 75.9% of patients had recurrent cancer, 24.1% had de novo BC stage IV. All patients with mBC received combined ET with CDK4/6i (palbociclib – 75.9%, ribociclib – 22.2%, both CDK4/6i – 1.9%), and aromatase inhibitors (51.9%) or fulvestrant (48.1%) were used as endocrine partners. Early lines with CDK4/6i prescription prevailed: the first line was in 50% of pts, the second line was in 35.2%, the third and subsequent lines were in only 14.8% of pts. Duration of response to CDK4/6i therapy ranged from 2 to 38 months (mean response was 9.1 months); progression on combined ET occurred in 51.9% of patients during the first 6 months of therapy (primary endocrine resistance), and in 48.1% of cases it developed within 6 to 38 months after starting therapy with CDK4/6i. Chemotherapy preceding eribulin (including early stages of BC) included anthracyclines and taxanes in 94.4% pts, in 5.6% of cases – taxanes only. The clinical characteristics of the patients and the treatment received are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Clinical characteristics of patients and the therapy prior to eribulin Таблица 1. Клиническая характеристика пациенток и предшествующей эрибулину терапии | ||
Clinical Characteristics | Number of Patients, N | % of Patients |
Age of patients | ||
Median (range) | 56 (27–79 y.o.) | |
Under 40 y.o. | 5 | 9.3 |
40–50 y.o. | 12 | 22.2 |
50–60 y.o. | 22 | 40.7 |
Over 60 y.o. | 15 | 27.8 |
BC stage | ||
Recurrent | 41 | 75.9 |
De novo stage IV | 13 | 24.1 |
BC stage at the time of primary treatment | ||
I | 9 | 16.7 |
IIA | 8 | 14.8 |
IIB | 13 | 24.1 |
IIIA | 2 | 3.7 |
IIIB | 15 | 27.8 |
IIIC | 7 | 13.0 |
Histological type of BC | ||
Invasive ductal | 29 | 53.7 |
Invasive lobular | 6 | 11.1 |
Other | 19 | 35.2 |
Prior therapy with CDK4/6i | ||
Palbociclib | 41 | 75.9 |
Ribociclib | 12 | 22.2 |
Both CDK4/6i | 1 | 1.9 |
Endocrine partner to CDK4/6i | ||
Aromatase inhibitors | 28 | 51.9 |
Fulvestrant | 26 | 48.1 |
CDK4/6i prescription line | ||
First | 27 | 50.0 |
Second | 19 | 35.2 |
≥Third | 8 | 14.8 |
Duration of response to CDK4/6i therapy | ||
Mean response time (range) | 9.1 months (2–38) | |
Progression in the first 6 months | 28 | 51.9 |
Progression from 6 to 38 months | 26 | 48.1 |
Chemotherapy (including early stages of BC) | ||
Anthracyclines + taxanes | 51 | 94.4 |
Taxanes only | 3 | 5.6 |
At the time of the start of chemotherapy with eribulin, visceral metastases were detected in the majority of cases (49/54; 89.1%), moreover, 36 patients (65.5%) had liver metastases, 28 (52.8%) had lung MTS, and 4 patients (7.5%) had brain damage. Bone MTS were diagnosed in 42 patients (79.2%), and MTS in the skin and soft tissues was registered in 10 patients (18.9%); Fig. 1. Among the rare sites of metastasis, tumor lesion of the pericardium in 2 patients, and MTS in the spleen, adrenal gland and intestinal wall in 1 case each should be noted. The majority of patients (73.1%) were diagnosed with lesions of three sites or more.
Fig. 1. The main sites of metastasis in patients with HR+/HER2- mBC at the start of eribulin therapy.
Рис. 1. Основные сайты метастазирования у больных HR+HER2- мРМЖ на начало терапии эрибулином.
The patients received eribulin after CDK4/6i according to the indications registered in Russia: as the second and subsequent lines of chemotherapy for metastatic BC after anthracyclines and taxanes, including chemotherapy for the early stages. The efficacy and safety of eribulin therapy in patients with HR+/HER2- mBC after the progression with CDK4/6i was studied; statistical analysis was performed by the international statistical program SPSS 20.0, differences were considered significant at p<0.05, survival was calculated using the Kaplan–Meier methods.
Results
Efficacy analysis of eribulin therapy
Eribulin was prescribed as monotherapy at a standard dose of 1.4 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 as a 5-minute intravenous infusion, with a 21-days interval between cycles. In the case of the development of serious adverse events, the dose reduction was carried out in a 2-steps: the first reduction step – up to 1.1 mg/m2 (required by 9 patients, 16.7%) on days 1 and 8, the second reduction step – up to a dose of 0.7 mg/m2 on days 1 and 8 (required in 1 case, 1.9%); Table 2.
Table 2. Eribulin chemotherapy in patients with CDK4/6i-pretreated HR+/HER2- mBC: main indicators and efficacy assessment Таблица 2. ХТ эрибулином у больных CDK4/6i-предлеченным HR+HER2- мРМЖ: основные показатели и оценка эффективности | ||
Key Characteristics | Number of Patients, N | % of Patients |
Number of cycles of eribulin | ||
Range | 1–44 | |
Median | 8 | |
Mean number | 10.5 | |
Eribulin chemotherapy line | ||
Second | 33 | 61.1 |
Third | 16 | 29.6 |
Fourth | 4 | 7.4 |
Fifth | 1 | 1.9 |
Eribulin dose reduction | ||
No | 45 | 83.3 |
Up to 1.1 mg/m2 | 9 | 16.7 |
Up to 0.7 mg/m2 | 1 | 1.9 |
Therapy status with a median follow-up of 11.5 months | ||
Therapy continues | 30 | 55.6 |
Therapy was discontinued due to progression | 22 | 40.7 |
Therapy was discontinued due to toxicity | 2 | 3.7 |
Maximum response to eribulin therapy | ||
Partial response | 11 | 24.4 |
Stabilization | 30 | 66.7 |
Progression | 4 | 8.9 |
In the majority of patients (49/54; 90.7%), eribulin was used in the initial lines of HR+/HER2-negative mBC therapy: in the second line – 33 (61.1%) pts, in the third line – 16 (29.6%). In the later lines (fourth and fifth), eribulin was prescribed extremely rarely – only in 7.4 and 1.9% of pts, respectively. The number of chemotherapy cycles with eribulin ranged from 1 to 44, the median was 8, and the mean was 10.5 cycles.
With a median follow-up of 11.5 months (from 3 to 36 months), 30 patients (55.6%) continue therapy with eribulin; therapy was cancelled in 24 pts, due to progression in 22 cases (40.7%), and due to intolerable toxicity in 2 patients (3.7%).
The maximum response to eribulin therapy (evaluated in 45 patients) included partial response (in 11 cases, 24.4%), stable of disease (in 30 cases, 66.7%) and progression in 4 pts (8.9%); Table 2. The effectiveness of treatment was not carried out in 9 pts due to a short follow-up period (from 1 to 5 months from the start of treatment). Data on eribulin therapy and its results are presented in Table 2.
Patient survival was assessed with a median follow-up of 11.5 months. Median PFS with eribulin therapy was 10.0 months; 3-months, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year PFS were 94.4%, 79.5%, 44.8% and 26.5%, respectively. It should be noted that the efficacy of eribulin therapy did not depend on such clinical factors as the age of the patients, p=0.305; previously obtained CDK4/6i (palbociclib/ribociclib), p=0.642; endocrine partner to CDK4/6i (aromatase inhibitors/fulvestrant), p=0.804; the line of prescription of CDK4/6i (p=0.593). Besides, PFS values were high and identical in patients with recurrent and de novo stage IV mBC (p=0.389); Fig. 2, when using eribulin in the second and third lines of chemotherapy (p=0.567); Fig. 3.
Fig. 2. PFS according to recurrent and de novo stage IV mBC (p=0.389).
Fig. 2. PFS according to recurrent and de novo stage IV mBC (p=0.389).
Fig. 3. PFS according to line of eribulin chemotherapy (p=0.567).
Рис. 3. ВБП в зависимости от линии ХТ эрибулином (р=0,567).
Eribulin therapy was equally effective at different sites of metastasis; thus, the median PFS with liver metastases or in their absence was 10 vs 11.8 months, p=0.663 (Fig. 4); with bone metastases/in their absence – 11 vs 9.0 months, p=0.726 (Fig. 5); with skin and soft tissue metastases/in their absence – 9 vs 11 months, p=0.476 (Fig. 6).
Fig. 4. PFS according to liver metastases (p=0.663).
Рис. 4. ВБП в зависимости от наличия/отсутствия МТС в печень (р=0,663).
Fig. 5. PFS according to bone metastases (p=0.726).
Рис. 5. ВБП в зависимости от наличия/отсутствия костных МТС (р=0,726).
Fig. 6. PFS according to skin and soft tissue metastases (p=0.726).
Рис. 6. ВБП в зависимости от наличия/отсутствия кожных и мягкотканых МТС (р=0,726).
The best response to eribulin therapy were observed in patients with lung lesions: the presence of lung MTS was associated with a high sensitivity to eribulin and the best values of the median PFS and these differences are close to statistically significant (24 vs 9.1 months, p=0.056); Fig. 7.
Fig. 7. PFS according to lung metastases (p=0.056).
Рис. 7. ВБП в зависимости от наличия/отсутствия МТС в легкие (р=0,056).
With a median follow-up of 11.5 months, 4 out of 54 patients (92.6%) died from BC progression, 50 out of 54 patients (92.6%) remain alive and continue treatment for mBC.
Safety analysis of eribulin therapy
The safety profile of eribulin therapy was favorable; adverse events associated with eribulin therapy were observed in 19 out of 54 patients (34.5%). Among adverse events of all grades, neutropenia prevailed in 14/54 pts, 25.9%, with G1 in 5.5%, G2 in 11.1%, G3 in 9.3%, while febrile neutropenia was noted in only 1 case (1.9%). Polyneuropathy was observed in 6 of 54 pts, 11.1%, with G1 in 5.5%, G2 in 3.7%, G3 in 1.8% of cases. Anemia and asthenia were noted in 9.3% of patients, G1 in all cases; alopecia (G1 only) developed in 2/54 patients (3.7%). It should be noted that the development of adverse events did not affect the efficacy of eribulin therapy, p=0.648 (Fig. 8).
Fig. 8. PFS according to adverse events during eribulin therapy (p=0.648).
Рис. 8. Влияние развития нежелательных явлений при терапии эрибулином на показатели ВБП (р=0,648).
The development of adverse events required dose reduction in 10 patients; in 9 out of 54 pts, 16.7% – up to a dose of 1.1 mg/m2, and a dose reduction to 0.7 mg/m2 was required in 1 patient (1.9%) only. It is important that the reduction of the eribulin dose did not affect the effectiveness of therapy; the median PFS were similar in patients with the full and reduced doses of the drug (p=0.612); Fig. 9.
Fig. 9. PFS according to dose reduction of eribulin (p=0.612).
Рис. 9. Влияние редукции дозы эрибулина на показатели ВБП (р=0,612).
Discussion
The current priorities in the treatment of hormone-sensitive HER2- BC are obvious: due to the high antitumor efficacy, proven survival benefit and high quality of life, oncological communities recommend CDK4/6i as first and second lines of therapy for this type of disease. Despite this, about 20% of patients have the progression of the disease already in the first year after starting CDK4/6i therapy [11–16]. The choice of a further treatment strategy after CDK4/6i becomes an urgent and difficult task due to the absent of convincing data on the benefit any tipe of therapy in this situation. When three lines of endocrine therapy are ineffective or when symptoms of a visceral crisis appear, the issue of prescribing chemotherapy becomes obvious for all patients with HR+/HER2- mBC [4–6].
Among the cytostatic agents that have proven efficacy as late lines of therapy, eribulin stands out, while it combines a high antitumor activity and a favorable safety profile. The uniqueness of this drug is caused not only by the absence of cross-resistance to other cytostatic agents and the high efficiency of eribulin after anthracyclines and taxanes but also by the presence of therapeutic potential for various biological subtypes including HR+/HER2- mBC [17–21].
The results of our observational study showes the high efficacy of eribulin in Russian practice in patients after progression on CDK4/6i therapy, which coincides with the data of the large US observational study, EMPOWER, in which 395 patients with HR+/HER2- mBC received combined ET with CDK4/6i and after progression – chemotherapy with eribulin [22]. In the group of patients who received eribulin according to the indications registered in the United States (third-line chemotherapy for mBC after anthracyclines and taxanes), there were 135 patients, who had visceral metastases in 92.6% of cases. The authors showed high rates of eribulin efficacy in such a challenging clinical situation: 26.7% had an objective response, and 54.1% of patients had shown clinical efficacy, the median PFS was not achieved, and the 6-month PFS was observed in 70.4% of patients. The safety profile of therapy was favorable and corresponded to previously reported data: the rate of neutropenia was low in 23% (febrile neutropenia in only 0.7% of cases), peripheral polyneuropathy was registered in 11.1%, and diarrhea in 12.6% of patients. It should be noted that the efficacy of eribulin in the EMPOWER study was assessed only for 64.4% of patients who received this treatment [22].
According to the combined Russian analysis, the population of Russian patients receiving eribulin after CDK4/6i was also characterized by the presence of unfavorable clinical factors: recurrent BC – 75.9%, progression during the first 6 months of therapy with CDK4/6i – 51.9%, visceral MTS – 89.1% (MTS in the liver – 65.5%, MTS in the lungs – 52.8%), MTS in the brain – 7.5%. Despite this, the prescription of eribulin as an early line of chemotherapy (in the second line – 61.1%, in the third line – 29.6%), careful monitoring of toxicity and competent dose reduction made it possible to achieve high rates of treatment efficacy in Russian women (partial response – 24.4%, stable of BC – 66.7%). Patient survival was assessed with a median follow-up of 11.5 months; median PFS was 10.0 months; 3-month, 6-month, 1-year, and 2-year PFS were 94.4%, 79.5%, 44.8% and 26.5%, respectively. It should be noted that the efficacy of eribulin therapy in Russian women did not depend on the age of the patients, previous treatment, and most of the metastatic sites. However, the maximum efficacy of eribulin therapy was observed in patients with lung metastases: in this subgroup the median PFS reached 24 months (without lung MTS – 9.1 months, p=0.056); the search for factors explaining such high therapeutic potential in lung metastases seems to be a very promising task for practical oncology.
The safety profile of eribulin therapy in Russian patients receiving eribulin after CDK4/6i was favorable, which is consistent with the results of the randomized trials and the data from the EMPOWER study analysis. Adverse events associated with eribulin therapy were observed in 34.5%, in most cases – of grade 1 and 2; dose reduction was required in 18.5% of cases. However, the development of adverse events and the dose reduction did not affect the efficacy of eribulin therapy in Russian patients.
Conclusion
Thus, the first results of the pooled Russian analysis (as well as the results of the US observational study, EMPOWER) give grounds to hope that eribulin may become a promising therapeutic option in patients with hormone-resistant mBC after progression with CDK4/6i.
This publication has been produced with the financial support of Eisay. The authors are solely responsible for the content of the publication and editorial decisions.
About the authors
Irina V. Kolyadina
Russian Medical Academy of Continuous Professional Education; Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology; Kulakov National Medical Research Center for Obstetrics, Gynecology and Perinatology;
Author for correspondence.
Email: irinakolyadina@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-1124-6802
D. Sci. (Med.), Prof.
Russian Federation, Moscow; Moscow; MoscowNatalia R. Abidova
Moscow City Oncological Hospital №62
Email: Vitt18@yandex.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowArshak A. Akopyan
Moscow City Oncological Hospital №62
Email: arsh.akopian@gmail.com
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowGalina V. Antonova
City Clinical Hospital №40
Email: gal-antonova@mail.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowOksana I. Arapova
City Clinical Hospital №40
Email: sno7@yandex.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowElvira A. Bobrova
Loginov Moscow Clinical Research Center
Email: bobrovaelvira@yandex.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowLarisa V. Bolotina
Hertsen Moscow Oncology Research Institute – branch of National Medical Research Radiological Centre
Email: lbolotina@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4879-2687
D. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, MoscowChulpan K. Valiakhmetova
Republican Clinical Oncological Dispensary
Email: chvali@bk.ru
Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, UfaAnna V. Vasilevskaya
Moscow Regional Oncological Dispensary
Email: annavasilevs@rambler.ru
Department Head
Russian Federation, BalashikhaLyubov Y. Vladimirova
National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Email: lubovurievna@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-4822-5044
D. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, Rostov-on-DonMikhail V. Volkonskiy
Moscow City Oncological Hospital №62
Email: mux19@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4060-5015
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowInna P. Ganshina
Blokhin National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Email: ganshinainna77@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0105-9376
Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, MoscowIrina E. Gudkova
Troitsk City Hospital
Email: i.gudkova@list.ru
Department Head
Russian Federation, TroitskAlexandr S. Dergunov
Tver Regional Clinical Oncological Dispensary
Email: a.dergunov87@yandex.ru
Department Head
Russian Federation, TverIrina V. Evstigneeva
Tver Regional Clinical Oncological Dispensary
Email: irevst@yandex.ru
Department Head
Russian Federation, TverViktoria S. Egurenkova
Loginov Moscow Clinical Research Center
Email: DRAGON2699@yandex.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowAleksei V. Emshanov
Oncology Center
Email: emshanov.alesha@yandex.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, Rostov-on-DonLyudmila G. Zhukova
Loginov Moscow Clinical Research Center
Email: zhukova.lyudmila008@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-4848-6938
D. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, MoscowElena V. Zueva
City Clinical Oncological Hospital №1
Email: elena.zyeva@yahoo.com
Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, MoscowElena V. Karabina
Tula Regional Oncological Dispensary
Email: kev-251@yandex.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, TulaJames J. Kolokolov
Botkin City Clinical Hospital
Email: jamesstep@mail.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowSvetlana V. Kuzmicheva
Loginov Moscow Clinical Research Center
Email: dr-kuzmicheva@yandex.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowOlesya A. Kuchevskaya
City Clinical Hospital №40
Email: Olesya.kuchevskaya@mail.ru
Department Head
Russian Federation, MoscowIvan A. Luev
Moscow City Oncological Hospital №62
Email: torleyf@gmail.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-7694-0862
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowKsenia S. Maistrenko
City Clinical Hospital №40
Email: ksenimay94@gmail.com
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowElena V. Markizova
City Clinical Hospital №40
Email: marklenav@gmail.com
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowVasily V. Marfutov
Loginov Moscow Clinical Research Center
Email: v.marfutov@mknc.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowSergey P. Medvedev
Treatment and Rehabilitation Center
Email: feelyou2017@mail.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowYulia I. Merzlikina
Loginov Moscow Clinical Research Center
Email: anoma-lia@mail.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowTatyana A. Nersesova
City Clinical Oncological Hospital №1
Email: dr.nersesova@gmail.com
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowElena G. Ovchinnikova
Nizhny Novgorod Regional Clinical Oncological Dispensary
Email: ego52@bk.ru
Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, Nizhny NovgorodSvetlana A. Orlova
Republican Clinical Oncological Dispensary
Email: lana.orlova_84@mail.ru
Department Head
Russian Federation, CheboksaryNatalia Y. Samaneva
National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Email: prettyfairy19@rambler.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0843-6012
oncologist
Russian Federation, Rostov-on-DonOlesya A. Stativko
City Clinical Oncological Hospital №1
Email: olesya_stativko@mail.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowAnna E. Storozhakova
National Medical Research Center of Oncology
Email: maymur@list.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0965-0264
oncologist
Russian Federation, Rostov-on-DonDaniil L. Stroyakovskiy
Moscow City Oncological Hospital №62
Email: d.stroiakovski@icloud.com
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1973-1092
Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, MoscowAlexander V. Sultanbaev
Republican Clinical Oncological Dispensary
Email: rkodrb@yandex.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-0996-5995
Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, UfaAsiat I. Tekeeva
Medical Center for Rehabilitation
Email: tekeevaai@mail.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, PodolskNatalia V. Fadeeva
Chelyabinsk Regional Clinical Center of Oncology and Nuclear Medicine
Email: 89048082445@mail.ru
Cand. Sci. (Med.)
Russian Federation, ChelyabinskAlina N. Fedorova
City Clinical Oncological Hospital №1
Email: fedorova_an89@mail.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowOksana M. Shalaeva
Perm Regional Oncological Dispensary
Email: o.schalaeva@gmail.com
Department Head
Russian Federation, PermIrina A. Shangina
City Clinical Hospital №40
Email: shanginairina@mail.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, MoscowOksana N. Shirokova
Sverdlovsk Regional Oncological Dispensary
Email: ons80@list.ru
Department Head
Russian Federation, SverdlovskAlisa R. Shumskikh
Orenburg Regional Clinical Oncological Dispensary
Email: a.tsugyleva@mail.ru
oncologist
Russian Federation, OrenburgMariam Z. Yakubova
Moscow Regional Oncological Dispensary
Email: yak9090@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-0417-7028
oncologist
Russian Federation, BalashikhaReferences
- GLOBOCAN 2018; IACR, WHO, 2018. Available at: http://gco.iarc.fr/today/
- Состояние онкологической помощи населению России в 2018 году. Под ред. А.Д. Каприна, В.В. Старинского, Г.В. Петровой. М.: МНИОИ им. П.А. Герцена – филиал ФГБУ «НМИЦ радиологии» Минздрава России, 2019 [The state of cancer care for the population of Russia in 2018. Ed. A.D. Kaprina, V.V. Starinsky, G.V. Petrova. Moscow: Herzen MNIOI – branch of the Federal State Budgetary Institution «National Medical Research Center of Radiology» of the Ministry of Health of Russia, 2019 (in Russian)].
- Hwang KT, Kim J, Jung J, et al. Impact of breast cancer subtypes on prognosis of women with operable invasive breast cancer: A population-based study using SEER database. Clin Cancer Res 2019; 25: 1970–9.
- Стенина М.Б., Жукова Л.Г., Королева И.А., и др. Практические рекомендации по лекарственному лечению инвазивного рака молочной железы. Злокачественные опухоли. 2019; 9 (3s2) [Stenina MB, Zhukova LG, Koroleva IA, et al. Prakticheskie rekomendatsii po lekarstvennomu lecheniiu invazivnogo raka molochnoi zhelezy. Zlokachestvennye opukholi. 2019; 9 (3s2) (in Russian)]. DOI: 10.18027 / 2224-5057-2019-9-3s2-128-163
- NCCN guidelines 1.2021. Available at: https://education.nccn.org/node/88395.
- th ESO-ESMO International Consensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 5). Available at: https://www.esmo.org/guidelines/breast-cancer/consensus-recommendations-advanced-breast-cancer-abc-5.
- Bonotto M, Gerratana L, Di Maio M, et al. The Breast 2017; 31: 114–20. doi: 10.1016/j.breast.2016.10.021
- Messina C, Cattrini C, Buzzatti G, et al. CDK4/6 inhibitors in advanced hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2018; 172 (1): 9–21. doi: 10.1007/s10549-018-4901-0
- Im SA, Lu YS, Bardia A, et al. Overall Survival with Ribociclib plus Endocrine Therapy in Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med 2019; 381 (4): 307–16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1903765
- Iorfida M, Mazza M, Munzone E, et al. Fulvestrant in Combination with CDK4/6 Inhibitors for HER2- Metastatic Breast Cancers: Current Perspectives. Breast Cancer (Dove Med Press) 2020; 12: 45–56. doi: 10.2147/BCTT.S196240
- Wang L, Gao S, Li D, et al. CDK4/6 inhibitors plus endocrine therapy improve overall survival in advanced HR+/HER2- breast cancer: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Breast J 2020; 26 (7): 1439–43. doi: 10.1111/tbj.13703
- Niu Y, Xu J, Sun T. Cyclin-Dependent Kinases 4/6 inhibitors in breast cancer: current status, resistance, and combination strategies. J Cancer 2019; 10 (22): 5504–17. doi: 10.7150/jca.32628
- Yardley DA, Chan A, Nusch A, et al. Ribociclib + endocrine therapy in patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer presenting with visceral metastases: subgroup analysis of phase III MONALEESA trials. Paper presented at: San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium; December 4-8, 2018; San Antonio, TX. Abstract 1000.
- Bardia A, Huvitz SA, DeMichele A, et al. Tamoxifen or a nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor with ribociclib in premenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer: MONALEESA-7 subgroup analysis. Poster presented at: European Society for Medical Oncology Congress; October 19-23, 2018; Munich, Germany. Poster 330P.
- Rugo HS, Finn RS, Gelmon K, et al. Progression-free survival outcome is independent of objective response in patients with estrogen receptor-positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-negative Advanced Breast Cancer Treated with Palbociclib Plus Letrozole Compared with Letrozole: analysis from PALOMA-2. Clin Breast Cancer 2020; 20 (2): e173–e180. doi: 10.1016/j.clbc.2019.08.009
- Sledge GW Jr, Toi M, Neven P, et al. The Effect of Abemaciclib Plus Fulvestrant on Overall Survival in Hormone Receptor-Positive, ERBB2-Negative Breast Cancer That Progressed on Endocrine Therapy-MONARCH 2: A randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2019 Sep 29. doi: 10.1001/jamaoncol.2019.4782
- Cortes J, Schoffski P, Littlefield B. Multiple modes of action of eribulin mesylate: Emerging data and clinical implication. Cancer Treat Rev 2018; 70: 190–8.
- Cortes J, O’Shaughnessy J, Loesch D, et al. Eribulin monotherapy versus treatment of physician’s choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer (EMBRACE): a Phase 3 open-label randomised study. Lancet 2011; 377 (9769): 914–23.
- Pivot X. Pooled analyses of eribulin in metastatic breast cancer patients with at least one prior chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 2016; 00: 1–7. doi: 10.1093/annonc/mdw203
- Vladimirova L, Tikhanovskaya N, Mitashok I, et al. Efficacy of eribulin in elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer in real clinical practice in Russian Federation. J Breast 2019; 48 (Suppl. 2): S.56.
- Горбунова В.А., Колядина И.В., Коваленко Е.И., и др. Эффективность и безопасность эрибулина при HER2-отрицательном метастатическом раке молочной железы: данные многолетнего опыта из реальной клинической практики в России. Современная Онкология. 2019; 21 (1): 12–23 [Gorbunova VA, Kolyadina IV, Kovalenko EI, et al. Efficacy and safety of eribulin in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: the results of long-term experience in real clinical practice in Russia. Journal of Modern Oncology 2019; 21 (1): 12–23 (in Russian)]. doi: 10.26442/18151434.2019.1.190250
- Mougalian SS, Feinberg BA, Wang E, et al. Observational study of clinical outcomes of eribulin mesylate in metastatic breast cancer after cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor therapy. Future Oncol 2019; 15 (34): 3935–44.