4.5 Article

Progression-free survival (PFS) and toxicities of palbociclib in a geriatric population

期刊

BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT
卷 175, 期 3, 页码 667-674

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s10549-019-05181-4

关键词

Metastatic breast cancer; CDK 4; 6 inhibitors; Hormone receptor-positive breast cancer; Treatment toxicity

类别

资金

  1. [T32 CA009666-24]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PurposeOver 40% of newly diagnosed metastatic breast cancer patients are 70 years old; however, this population is less likely to be represented in clinical trials. The objective of this study was to analyze PFS, dose reductions, dose delays, and toxicity in a geriatric population receiving palbociclib in a non-trial setting.MethodsPatients with metastatic breast cancer receiving palbociclib in any line of therapy were identified from a cohort of 845 patients at a large academic institution. Dose delays, dose reductions, and toxicities were retrospectively extracted from the medical record. Data were analyzed using Fischer's exact test for categorized variables and T test/Wilcoxon rank-sum test for continuous variables. PFS and OS were analyzed using the Kaplan-Meier method.Results605 patients who met eligibility criteria were included. 160 patients were 65 years old and 92 patients were 70 years old. Patients70 had a significantly increased number of dose reductions (p=0.03) and dose delays (p=0.02) compared to the younger patients. There was no significant increase in toxicities, including neutropenic fever, infections, or hospitalizations, in the 70 cohort (p=0.3). The 70 cohort had a significantly improved PFS as compared to the younger cohort (p=0.02); however, age was no longer a significant variable in the multivariate analysis.ConclusionsPalbociclib was well tolerated in the geriatric population and there was no difference in PFS between older and younger patients. These results are reassuring as palbociclib becomes the frontline standard of care therapy for patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据