Detail
Article
Online article
FT
Medvik - BMC
  • Something wrong with this record ?

Final overall survival: fulvestrant 500 mg vs 250 mg in the randomized CONFIRM trial

A. Di Leo, G. Jerusalem, L. Petruzelka, R. Torres, IN. Bondarenko, R. Khasanov, D. Verhoeven, JL. Pedrini, I. Smirnova, MR. Lichinitser, K. Pendergrass, L. Malorni, S. Garnett, Y. Rukazenkov, M. Martin,

. 2014 ; 106 (1) : djt337.

Language English Country United States

Document type Clinical Trial, Phase III, Journal Article, Randomized Controlled Trial, Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

BACKGROUND: At the time of the initial analysis of overall survival (OS) for the Comparison of Faslodex in Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, approximately 50% of patients had died. A final analysis of OS was subsequently planned for when 75% of patients had died. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to fulvestrant 500 mg administered as two 5-mL intramuscular injections on days 0, 14, and 28 and every 28 (±3) days thereafter or fulvestrant 250 mg administered as two 5-mL intramuscular injections (one fulvestrant and one placebo [identical in appearance to study drug]) on days 0, 14 (two placebo injections only), and 28 and every 28 (±3) days thereafter. OS was analyzed using an unadjusted log-rank test. No adjustments were made for multiplicity. Serious adverse events (SAEs) and best response to subsequent therapy were also reported. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: In total, 736 women (median age = 61.0 years) were randomly assigned to fulvestrant 500 mg (n = 362) or 250 mg (n = 374). At the final survival analysis, 554 of 736 (75.3%) patients had died. Median OS was 26.4 months for fulvestrant 500 mg and 22.3 months for 250 mg (hazard ratio = 0.81; 95% confidence interval = 0.69-0.96; nominal P = .02). There were no clinically important differences in SAE profiles between the treatment groups; no clustering of SAEs could be detected in either treatment group. Type of first subsequent therapy and objective responses to first subsequent therapy were well balanced between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, fulvestrant 500 mg is associated with a 19% reduction in risk of death and a 4.1-month difference in median OS compared with fulvestrant 250 mg. Fulvestrant 500 mg was well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were identified.

References provided by Crossref.org

000      
00000naa a2200000 a 4500
001      
bmc14050725
003      
CZ-PrNML
005      
20140411125154.0
007      
ta
008      
140401s2014 xxu f 000 0|eng||
009      
AR
024    7_
$a 10.1093/jnci/djt337 $2 doi
035    __
$a (PubMed)24317176
040    __
$a ABA008 $b cze $d ABA008 $e AACR2
041    0_
$a eng
044    __
$a xxu
100    1_
$a Di Leo, Angelo
245    10
$a Final overall survival: fulvestrant 500 mg vs 250 mg in the randomized CONFIRM trial / $c A. Di Leo, G. Jerusalem, L. Petruzelka, R. Torres, IN. Bondarenko, R. Khasanov, D. Verhoeven, JL. Pedrini, I. Smirnova, MR. Lichinitser, K. Pendergrass, L. Malorni, S. Garnett, Y. Rukazenkov, M. Martin,
520    9_
$a BACKGROUND: At the time of the initial analysis of overall survival (OS) for the Comparison of Faslodex in Recurrent or Metastatic Breast Cancer (CONFIRM) randomized, double-blind, phase III trial, approximately 50% of patients had died. A final analysis of OS was subsequently planned for when 75% of patients had died. METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to fulvestrant 500 mg administered as two 5-mL intramuscular injections on days 0, 14, and 28 and every 28 (±3) days thereafter or fulvestrant 250 mg administered as two 5-mL intramuscular injections (one fulvestrant and one placebo [identical in appearance to study drug]) on days 0, 14 (two placebo injections only), and 28 and every 28 (±3) days thereafter. OS was analyzed using an unadjusted log-rank test. No adjustments were made for multiplicity. Serious adverse events (SAEs) and best response to subsequent therapy were also reported. All statistical tests were two-sided. RESULTS: In total, 736 women (median age = 61.0 years) were randomly assigned to fulvestrant 500 mg (n = 362) or 250 mg (n = 374). At the final survival analysis, 554 of 736 (75.3%) patients had died. Median OS was 26.4 months for fulvestrant 500 mg and 22.3 months for 250 mg (hazard ratio = 0.81; 95% confidence interval = 0.69-0.96; nominal P = .02). There were no clinically important differences in SAE profiles between the treatment groups; no clustering of SAEs could be detected in either treatment group. Type of first subsequent therapy and objective responses to first subsequent therapy were well balanced between the two treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with locally advanced or metastatic estrogen receptor-positive breast cancer, fulvestrant 500 mg is associated with a 19% reduction in risk of death and a 4.1-month difference in median OS compared with fulvestrant 250 mg. Fulvestrant 500 mg was well tolerated, and no new safety concerns were identified.
650    _2
$a dospělí $7 D000328
650    _2
$a senioři $7 D000368
650    _2
$a hormonální protinádorové látky $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D018931
650    _2
$a nádory prsu $x farmakoterapie $x metabolismus $x mortalita $x patologie $7 D001943
650    _2
$a přežití bez známek nemoci $7 D018572
650    _2
$a vztah mezi dávkou a účinkem léčiva $7 D004305
650    _2
$a dvojitá slepá metoda $7 D004311
650    _2
$a rozvrh dávkování léků $7 D004334
650    _2
$a estradiol $x aplikace a dávkování $x analogy a deriváty $7 D004958
650    _2
$a modulátory estrogenních receptorů $x aplikace a dávkování $7 D020847
650    _2
$a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
650    _2
$a lidé $7 D006801
650    _2
$a injekce intramuskulární $7 D007273
650    _2
$a Kaplanův-Meierův odhad $7 D053208
650    _2
$a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
650    _2
$a odds ratio $7 D016017
650    _2
$a receptory pro estrogeny $x metabolismus $7 D011960
655    _2
$a klinické zkoušky, fáze III $7 D017428
655    _2
$a časopisecké články $7 D016428
655    _2
$a randomizované kontrolované studie $7 D016449
655    _2
$a práce podpořená grantem $7 D013485
700    1_
$a Jerusalem, Guy $u -
700    1_
$a Petruzelka, Lubos $u -
700    1_
$a Torres, Roberto $u -
700    1_
$a Bondarenko, Igor N $u -
700    1_
$a Khasanov, Rustem $u -
700    1_
$a Verhoeven, Didier $u -
700    1_
$a Pedrini, José L $u -
700    1_
$a Smirnova, Iya $u -
700    1_
$a Lichinitser, Mikhail R $u -
700    1_
$a Pendergrass, Kelly $u -
700    1_
$a Malorni, Luca $u -
700    1_
$a Garnett, Sally $u -
700    1_
$a Rukazenkov, Yuri $u -
700    1_
$a Martin, Miguel $u -
773    0_
$w MED00003002 $t Journal of the National Cancer Institute $x 1460-2105 $g Roč. 106, č. 1 (2014), s. djt337
856    41
$u https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24317176 $y Pubmed
910    __
$a ABA008 $b sig $c sign $y a $z 0
990    __
$a 20140401 $b ABA008
991    __
$a 20140411125244 $b ABA008
999    __
$a ok $b bmc $g 1017861 $s 849305
BAS    __
$a 3
BAS    __
$a PreBMC
BMC    __
$a 2014 $b 106 $c 1 $d djt337 $i 1460-2105 $m Journal of the National Cancer Institute $n J Natl Cancer Inst $x MED00003002
LZP    __
$a Pubmed-20140401

Find record

Citation metrics

Loading data ...

Archiving options

Loading data ...