Decoding NATALEE and MonarchE eligibility criteria in a real-world cohort of early breast cancer patients.

IF 4.8 2区 医学 Q1 ONCOLOGY
Oncologist Pub Date : 2025-05-08 DOI:10.1093/oncolo/oyaf061
Jacopo Canzian, Damiano Gentile, Rita De Sanctis, Flavia Jacobs, Chiara Benvenuti, Mariangela Gaudio, Riccardo Gerosa, Giuseppe Saltalamacchia, Rosalba Torrisi, Giovanna Masci, Corrado Tinterri, Alberto Zambelli
{"title":"Decoding NATALEE and MonarchE eligibility criteria in a real-world cohort of early breast cancer patients.","authors":"Jacopo Canzian, Damiano Gentile, Rita De Sanctis, Flavia Jacobs, Chiara Benvenuti, Mariangela Gaudio, Riccardo Gerosa, Giuseppe Saltalamacchia, Rosalba Torrisi, Giovanna Masci, Corrado Tinterri, Alberto Zambelli","doi":"10.1093/oncolo/oyaf061","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>The NATALEE trial expanded the use of adjuvant cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors beyond the MonarchE trial's criteria for early breast cancer (eBC). We conducted a retrospective analysis comparing a large real-world (RW) cohort of 762 consecutive eBC patients with those enrolled in the NATALEE and MonarchE randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate differences in eligibility. Our analysis revealed that 41.7% of RW patients met NATALEE's eligibility criteria, significantly more than the 21.8% who met MonarchE's criteria, reflecting NATALEE's broader indication. Real-world patients were older, had less advanced tumors, and were less likely to be treated with adjuvant chemotherapy compared to the RCT populations. None of the RW patients was deemed eligible for ribociclib based solely on high genomic risk. These findings underscore significant differences in clinical characteristics and potential treatment eligibility, highlighting the need for critical assessment of RCTs results in clinical practice.</p>","PeriodicalId":54686,"journal":{"name":"Oncologist","volume":"30 5","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":4.8000,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12076640/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Oncologist","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyaf061","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The NATALEE trial expanded the use of adjuvant cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitors beyond the MonarchE trial's criteria for early breast cancer (eBC). We conducted a retrospective analysis comparing a large real-world (RW) cohort of 762 consecutive eBC patients with those enrolled in the NATALEE and MonarchE randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate differences in eligibility. Our analysis revealed that 41.7% of RW patients met NATALEE's eligibility criteria, significantly more than the 21.8% who met MonarchE's criteria, reflecting NATALEE's broader indication. Real-world patients were older, had less advanced tumors, and were less likely to be treated with adjuvant chemotherapy compared to the RCT populations. None of the RW patients was deemed eligible for ribociclib based solely on high genomic risk. These findings underscore significant differences in clinical characteristics and potential treatment eligibility, highlighting the need for critical assessment of RCTs results in clinical practice.

解码NATALEE和MonarchE在真实世界早期乳腺癌患者队列中的资格标准。
NATALEE试验扩大了辅助周期蛋白依赖性激酶4/6抑制剂的使用,超出了MonarchE试验早期乳腺癌(eBC)的标准。我们进行了一项回顾性分析,将762名连续的eBC患者与NATALEE和MonarchE随机对照试验(rct)的患者进行比较,以评估资格的差异。我们的分析显示41.7%的RW患者符合NATALEE的资格标准,明显高于符合MonarchE标准的21.8%,反映了NATALEE的适应症更广泛。与RCT人群相比,现实世界的患者年龄较大,肿瘤进展较轻,并且不太可能接受辅助化疗。没有一名RW患者仅仅基于高基因组风险而被认为有资格使用ribociclib。这些发现强调了临床特征和潜在治疗资格的显著差异,强调了在临床实践中对随机对照试验结果进行严格评估的必要性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Oncologist
Oncologist 医学-肿瘤学
CiteScore
10.40
自引率
3.40%
发文量
309
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: The Oncologist® is dedicated to translating the latest research developments into the best multidimensional care for cancer patients. Thus, The Oncologist is committed to helping physicians excel in this ever-expanding environment through the publication of timely reviews, original studies, and commentaries on important developments. We believe that the practice of oncology requires both an understanding of a range of disciplines encompassing basic science related to cancer, translational research, and clinical practice, but also the socioeconomic and psychosocial factors that determine access to care and quality of life and function following cancer treatment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信