Explore the vast range of titles available.

Introduction: In breast cancer patients treated with the anti-estrogen tamoxifen, low concentrations of the active metabolite endoxifen are associated with more disease recurrence. We hypothesized that we could increase endoxifen concentrations by induction of its formation and inhibition of its metabolism by co-administration of probenecid. Methods: We conducted a crossover study and measured endoxifen concentrations in patients on steady-state tamoxifen monotherapy and after 14 days of combination treatment with probenecid. Eleven evaluable patients were included. Results: Treatment with tamoxifen and probenecid resulted in a 26% increase of endoxifen area under the plasma concentration–time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0–24h) compared to tamoxifen monotherapy (95% confidence interval [CI]: 8–46%; p < 0.01), while the maximum observed endoxifen concentration increased with 24% (95% CI: 7–44%; p < 0.01). The metabolic ratio of endoxifen to tamoxifen increased with 110% (95% CI: 82–143%; p < 0.001) after the addition of probenecid. Conclusion: Probenecid resulted in a clinically relevant increase of endoxifen concentrations in breast cancer patients treated with adjuvant tamoxifen. This combination therapy could provide a solution for patients with a CYP2D6-poor metabolizer phenotype or endoxifen concentrations below the threshold despite earlier tamoxifen dose.

Tamoxifen is a prodrug that is primarily metabolized into the pharmacologically active metabolite endoxifen and eventually into inactive metabolites. The herb curcumin may increase endoxifen exposure by affecting phase II metabolism. We compared endoxifen and tamoxifen exposure in breast cancer patients with or without curcumin, and with addition of the bio-enhancer piperine. Tamoxifen (20–30mg per day (q.d.)) was either given alone, or combined with curcumin (1200 mg three times daily (t.i.d.)) +/− piperine (10 mg t.i.d.). The primary endpoint of this study was the difference in geometric means for the area under the curve (AUC) of endoxifen. Genotyping was performed to determine CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 phenotypes. The endoxifen AUC0–24h decreased with 7.7% (95%CI: −15.4 to 0.7%; p = 0.07) with curcumin and 12.4% (95%CI: −21.9 to −1.9%; p = 0.02) with curcumin and piperine, compared to tamoxifen alone. Tamoxifen AUC0–24h showed similar results. For patients with an extensive CYP2D6 metabolism phenotype (EM), effects were more pronounced than for intermediate CYP2D6 metabolizers (IMs). In conclusion, the exposure to tamoxifen and endoxifen was significantly decreased by concomitant use of curcumin (+/− piperine). Therefore, co-treatment with curcumin could lower endoxifen concentrations below the threshold for efficacy (potentially 20–40% of the patients), especially in EM patients.

Cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors (CDK4/6i) in combination with endocrine therapy improve the outcomes of patients with hormone-receptor (HR)-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer and can be used early as first-line treatment or deferred to second-line treatment 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 – 7 . Randomized data comparing the use of CDK4/6i in the first- and second-line setting are lacking. The phase 3 SONIA trial (NCT03425838) randomized 1,050 patients who had not received previous therapy for advanced breast cancer to receive CDK4/6i in the first- or second-line setting 8 . All of the patients received the same endocrine therapy, consisting of an aromatase inhibitor for first-line treatment and fulvestrant for second-line treatment. The primary end point was defined as the time from randomization to disease progression after second-line treatment (progression-free survival 2 (PFS2)). We observed no statistically significant benefit for the use of CDK4/6i as a first-line compared with second-line treatment (median, 31.0 versus 26.8 months, respectively; hazard ratio = 0.87; 95% confidence interval = 0.74–1.03; P  = 0.10). The health-related quality of life was similar in both groups. First-line CDK4/6i use was associated with a longer CDK4/6i treatment duration compared with second-line use (median CDK4/6i treatment duration of 24.6 versus 8.1 months, respectively) and more grade ≥3 adverse events (2,763 versus 1,591, respectively). These data challenge the need for first-line use of a CDK4/6i in all patients. The phase 3 SONIA trial challenges the benefits of using cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 inhibitors as a first-line compared with second-line treatment.

Tamoxifen may lead to bothersome side effects contributing to non-compliance and decreased quality of life. Patients searching for relief are increasingly turning to cannabinoids such as CBD-oil. However, CBD-oil might affect tamoxifen pharmacokinetics (PK) through CYP2D6 inhibition. The aims of this open-label, single-arm study were (1) to determine the PK profile of tamoxifen when using CBD-oil, and (2) to subsequently investigate whether CBD-oil has a beneficial influence on side effects. Study patients had to have steady-state endoxifen concentrations ≥16 nM (conservative threshold). PK sampling and side effect assessment was done at initiation of CBD-oil and 28 days thereafter. Bio-equivalence could be concluded if the 90% confidence interval (CI) for the difference in endoxifen AUC fell within the [−20%; +25%] interval. The effect of CBD-oil on side effects was evaluated using the FACT-ES questionnaire. Endoxifen AUC decreased after CBD-oil by 12.6% (n = 15, 90% CI −18.7%, −6.1%) but remained within bio-equivalence boundaries. The endocrine sub-scale of the FACT-ES improved clinically relevant with 6.7 points (n = 26, p < 0.001) and health-related quality of life improved with 4.7 points after using CBD (95% CI + 1.8, +7.6). We conclude that CBD-oil, if of good quality and with a dosage below 50 mg, does not have to be discouraged in patients using it for tamoxifen-related side effects. Clinical trial registration: International Clinical Trial Registry Platform (NL8786; https://www.who.int/clinical-trials-registry-platform).

Background Endoxifen is the most important active metabolite of tamoxifen. Several retrospective studies have suggested a minimal or threshold endoxifen systemic concentration of 14–16 nM is required for a lower recurrence rate. The aim of this study was to investigate the feasibility of reaching a predefined endoxifen level of ≥ 16 nM (5.97 ng/mL) over time using therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM). Methods This prospective open-label intervention study enrolled patients who started treatment with a standard dose of tamoxifen 20 mg once daily for early breast cancer. An outpatient visit was combined with a TDM sample at 3, 4.5, and 6 months after initiation of the tamoxifen treatment. The tamoxifen dose was escalated to a maximum of 40 mg if patients had an endoxifen concentration < 16 nM. The primary endpoint of the study was the percentage of patients with an endoxifen level ≥ 16 nM at 6 months after the start of therapy compared with historical data, in other words, 80% of patients with endoxifen levels ≥ 16 nM with standard therapy. Results In total, 145 patients were included. After 6 months, 89% of the patients had endoxifen levels ≥ 16 nM, compared with a literature-based 80% of patients with endoxifen levels ≥ 16 nM at baseline (95% confidence interval 82–94; P = 0.007). In patients with an affected CYP2D6 allele, it was not always feasible to reach the predefined endoxifen level of ≥ 16 nM. No increase in tamoxifen-related adverse events was reported after dose escalation. Conclusion This study demonstrated that it is feasible to increase the percentage of patients with endoxifen levels ≥ 16 nM using TDM. TDM is a safe strategy that offers the possibility of nearly halving the number of patients with endoxifen levels < 16 nM.

Background The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic forced the Dutch national screening program to a halt and increased the burden on health care services, necessitating the introduction of specific breast cancer treatment recommendations from week 12 of 2020. We aimed to investigate the impact of COVID-19 on the diagnosis, stage and initial treatment of breast cancer. Methods Women included in the Netherlands Cancer Registry and diagnosed during four periods in weeks 2–17 of 2020 were compared with reference data from 2018/2019 (averaged). Weekly incidence was calculated by age group and tumor stage. The number of women receiving initial treatment within 3 months of diagnosis was calculated by period, initial treatment, age, and stage. Initial treatment, stratified by tumor behavior (ductal carcinoma in situ [DCIS] or invasive), was analyzed by logistic regression and adjusted for age, socioeconomic status, stage, subtype, and region. Factors influencing time to treatment were analyzed by Cox regression. Results Incidence declined across all age groups and tumor stages (except stage IV) from 2018/2019 to 2020, particularly for DCIS and stage I disease ( p  < 0.05). DCIS was less likely to be treated within 3 months (odds ratio [OR] wks2–8 : 2.04, OR wks9–11 : 2.18). Invasive tumors were less likely to be treated initially by mastectomy with immediate reconstruction (OR wks12–13 : 0.52) or by breast conserving surgery (OR wks14–17 : 0.75). Chemotherapy was less likely for tumors diagnosed in the beginning of the study period (OR wks9–11 : 0.59, OR wks12–13 : 0.66), but more likely for those diagnosed at the end (OR wks14–17 : 1.31). Primary hormonal treatment was more common (OR wks2–8 : 1.23, OR wks9–11 : 1.92, OR wks12–13 : 3.01). Only women diagnosed in weeks 2–8 of 2020 experienced treatment delays. Conclusion The incidence of breast cancer fell in early 2020, and treatment approaches adapted rapidly. Clarification is needed on how this has affected stage migration and outcomes.

Background Combining cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors with endocrine therapy is an effective strategy to improve progression-free survival in hormone receptor-positive (HR+), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer. There is a lack of comparative data to help clinicians decide if CDK4/6 inhibitors can best be added to first- or second-line endocrine therapy. Improvement in median progression-free survival in first-line studies is larger than in second-line studies, but CDK4/6 inhibitors have not consistently shown to improve overall survival or quality of life. They do come with added toxicity and costs, and many patients have lasting disease remission on endocrine therapy alone. No subgroup has been identified to select patients who are most likely to benefit from the addition of CDK4/6 inhibition in any line of treatment. Altogether, these factors make that the optimal strategy for using CDK4/6 inhibitors in clinical practice is unknown. Methods The SONIA study is an investigator-initiated, multicenter, randomized phase III study in patients with HR+/HER2-negative advanced breast cancer. Patients are randomly assigned to receive either strategy A (first-line treatment with a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor combined with CDK4/6 inhibition, followed on progression by fulvestrant) or strategy B (first-line treatment with a non-steroidal aromatase inhibitor, followed on progression by fulvestrant combined with CDK4/6 inhibition). The primary objective is to test whether strategy A is more effective than strategy B. The primary endpoint is time from randomization to second objective progression (PFS2). Secondary endpoints include overall survival, safety, quality of life, and cost-effectiveness. Five-hundred seventy-four events yield 89% power to show that strategy A has statistically significant, clinically meaningful superior PFS2 (according to ESMO-MCBS) in a log-rank test at the two-sided 95% confidence level. Given an accrual period of 42 months and an additional 18 months follow-up, inclusion of 1050 evaluable patients is required. Discussion This study design represents daily clinical practice, and the results will aid clinicians in deciding when adding CDK4/6 inhibitors to endocrine therapy will benefit their patients most. Additional biomarker analyses may help to optimize patient selection. Trial registration http://clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03425838 (8 February 2018). EudraCT-number: 2017–002334-23 (29 September 2017).