Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/176002
Title: Palbociclib in combination with endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in hormonal receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor 2-negative, aromatase inhibitor-resistant metastatic breast cancer: a phase III randomised controlled trial—PEARL
Author: Martin, M.
Zielinski, C.
Ruiz Borrego, M.
Carrasco, E.
Turner, N.
Ciruelos, E. M.
Muñoz Mateu, Montserrat
Bermejo de las Heras, Begoña
Margeli, M.
Anton, A.
Kahan, Z.
Csöszi, T.
Casas, M. I.
Murillo, L.
Morales, S.
Alba, Emilio
Gal Yam, E.
Guerrero Zotano, A.
Calvo, L.
Haba Rodríguez, J. de la
Ramos, M.
Álvarez López, Isabel
García Palomo, A.
Huang Bartlett, C.
Koehler, M.
Caballero, R.
Corsaro, M.
Huang, X.
García Sáenz, José Ángel
Chacón, J. I.
Swift, C.
Thallinger, C.
Gil Gil, Miguel
Keywords: Càncer de mama
Hormonoteràpia
Breast cancer
Hormone therapy
Issue Date: 1-Apr-2021
Publisher: Elsevier B. V.
Abstract: Background: Palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (ET) is the standard treatment of hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative, metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, its efficacy has not been compared with that of chemotherapy in a phase III trial. Patients and methods: PEARL is a multicentre, phase III randomised study in which patients with aromatase inhibitor (AI)-resistant MBC were included in two consecutive cohorts. In cohort 1, patients were randomised 1 : 1 to palbociclib plus exemestane or capecitabine. On discovering new evidence about estrogen receptor-1 (ESR1) mutations inducing resistance to AIs, the trial was amended to include cohort 2, in which patients were randomised 1 : 1 between palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine. The stratification criteria were disease site, prior sensitivity to ET, prior chemotherapy for MBC, and country of origin. Co-primary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS) in cohort 2 and in wild-type ESR1 patients (cohort 1 + cohort 2). ESR1 hotspot mutations were analysed in baseline circulating tumour DNA. Results: From March 2014 to July 2018, 296 and 305 patients were included in cohort 1 and cohort 2, respectively. Palbociclib plus ET was not superior to capecitabine in both cohort 2 [median PFS: 7.5 versus 10.0 months; adjusted hazard ratio (aHR): 1.13; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.85-1.50] and wild-type ESR1 patients (median PFS: 8.0 versus 10.6 months; aHR: 1.11; 95% CI: 0.87-1.41). The most frequent grade 3-4 toxicities with palbociclib plus exemestane, palbociclib plus fulvestrant and capecitabine, respectively, were neutropenia (57.4%, 55.7% and 5.5%), hand/foot syndrome (0%, 0% and 23.5%), and diarrhoea (1.3%, 1.3% and 7.6%). Palbociclib plus ET offered better quality of life (aHR for time to deterioration of global health status: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.53-0.85). Conclusions: There was no statistical superiority of palbociclib plus ET over capecitabine with respect to PFS in MBC patients resistant to AIs. Palbociclib plus ET showed a better safety profile and improved quality of life.
Note: Reproducció del document publicat a: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.12.013
It is part of: Annals of Oncology, 2021, vol. 32, num. 4, p. 488-499
URI: http://hdl.handle.net/2445/176002
Related resource: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2020.12.013
Appears in Collections:Articles publicats en revistes (Institut d'lnvestigació Biomèdica de Bellvitge (IDIBELL))
Articles publicats en revistes (IDIBAPS: Institut d'investigacions Biomèdiques August Pi i Sunyer)

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
PIIS0923753420432211.pdf529.14 kBAdobe PDFView/Open


This item is licensed under a Creative Commons License Creative Commons