![]() ![]() Medical writing support was provided by Shashank Tandon, PhD at MediTech Media, funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. This analysis also demonstrates the substantial benefit of RIB in those with poorer outcomes within the visceral mets subgroup, ie, pts with liver mets and those with multiple met disease sites, especially in the 1L population. This large, pooled analysis of the ML trials confirms the consistent survival benefit of RIB + ET in pts with visceral mets who historically have a poor prognosis. No new safety signals, including liver enzyme elevations, even in pts with baseline liver mets, were observed. This significant benefit persisted in the 1L subgroup, including in the subgroups of pts with a worse prognosis, such as those with liver mets or ≥3 met sites who achieved a median OS of ≈4-5 y with RIB. ResultsĪ significant PFS and OS benefit was observed with RIB in pts with visceral mets (Table), among which were pts with liver mets or ≥3 met disease sites across the pooled population of 1L/2L. In ML-7, premenopausal pts were randomized 1:1 to receive 1L RIB or PBO and goserelin with nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitor (NSAI)/tamoxifen (only pts in the NSAI arm were included in this analysis). In ML-3, postmenopausal pts were randomized 2:1 to receive RIB or PBO with fulvestrant in the 1L or second-line (2L) setting. In ML-2, postmenopausal pts were randomized 1:1 to receive first-line (1L) RIB or placebo (PBO) with letrozole. ![]() Here we report a pooled survival analysis of the ML-2, -3, and -7 trials in pts with visceral mets, including those with liver mets. The presence of visceral mets indicates a worse prognosis, with a particularly poor survival observed in pts with liver mets. RIB + ET demonstrated statistically significant progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) benefits in the ML-2, -3, and -7 trials in pts with HR+/HER2− ABC.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |