Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to assess the real-world effectiveness and tolerability of palbociclib combined with endocrine therapy for the treatment of hormone receptor positive (HR-positive), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative (HER2-negative), advanced/metastatic breast cancer that progressed on previous endocrine therapy, and to compare these results with the outcomes of the PALOMA-3 clinical trial. METHODS: This study was a retrospective observational cohort study including all patients who started with palbociclib in the St. Antonius Hospital between September 1, 2016 and April 1, 2018 for the treatment of HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced/metastatic breast cancer that progressed on previous endocrine therapy. Individual patient data were collected from electronic medical records. Primary study outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS) and the number of permanent treatment discontinuations before disease progression due to adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcomes were the frequency of all (serious) AEs and the frequency of and reasons for dose reductions, -interruptions and cycle delays. RESULTS: A total of 46 patients were studied with a median follow-up of 13.0 months. Overall, the median PFS in real-world clinical practice was 10.0 months (95% confidence interval (CI) 4.9-15.1), compared with 9.5 months in PALOMA-3 (95% CI 9.2-11.0). Two patients discontinued treatment because of AEs. Neutropenia was the most frequent grade 3-4 AE, but with no febrile neutropenia events. Most AEs were managed with palbociclib dose modifications. Regarding these modifications, more cycle delays, less dose reductions, and less dose interruptions occurred in clinical practice compared with PALOMA-3 (59 vs 36%, 22 vs 34%, and 9 vs 54%, respectively). Patients who did not meet the PALOMA-3 study eligibility criteria (n = 16) showed a lower median PFS of 5.5 months (95% CI 4.7-6.4). CONCLUSIONS: The effectiveness and tolerability of palbociclib in real-world clinical practice corresponded well with the results obtained in the PALOMA-3 clinical trial. Despite the differences in dose modifications, this study suggests that there is no efficacy-effectiveness gap in this patient population.