Evaluation of Factors That Increase the Risk of Hepatotoxicity in Patients Using Palbociclib and Ribociclib

Background In patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in combination with endocrine therapy have become a standard of care. Methods This was a retrospective study involved patients over the age of 18 years, who had de novo metastatic or local-ly breast cancer progressed to the metastatic stage and were treated with ribociclib and/or palbociclib. Results The mean age of a total of 73 patients included in the study was 57.0±10.3 years. Thirty-four (46.6%) patients were treated with palbociclib, 35 (47.9%) patients with ribociclib, 4 (5.5%) with palbociclib and ribociclib. Twenty-five (34.2%) of the patients developed any grade of hepatotoxicity, 12 (16.4%) of them was grade 2 hepatotoxicity. Of these patients, 11 (44%) received palbociclib, 13 (52%) received ribociclib, and 1 (4%) received palbociclib and ribociclib. In patients who were treated with palbociclib, 1 (2.9%) developed grade 3 hepatotoxicity and 1 (2.9%) developed grade 4 hepatotoxicity. Of those who received ribociclib, 3 (8.5%) developed grade 3 hepatotoxicity and 2 (5.7%) developed grade 4 hepatotoxicity. Conclusion In conclusion, it can be stated that ribociclib is more toxic to the liver than palbociclib, since patients who received ribociclib and developed grade 3-4 hepatotoxicity had no disease that facilitates hepatotoxicity. We believe that more comprehensive studies are needed to determine the factors that facilitate hepatotoxicity such as liver metastasis and to select the drug accordingly will prevent patients from being devoid of this group of drugs and discontinuing their treatment due to toxicity.

Evaluation of Factors That Increase the Risk of Hepatotoxicity in Patients Using Palbociclib and Ribociclib

Aim: In patients with hormone receptor-positive and HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, the use of CDK 4/6 inhibitors in combination with endocrine therapy have become a standard of care. Methods: This was a retrospective study involved patients over the age of 18 years, who had de novo metastatic or locally breast cancer progressed to the metastatic stage and were treated with ribociclib and/or palbociclib. Results: The mean age of a total of 73 patients included in the study was 57.0±10.3 years. Thirty-four (46.6%) patients were treated with palbociclib, 35 (47.9%) patients with ribociclib, 4 (5.5%) with palbociclib and ribociclib. Twenty-five (34.2%) of the patients developed any grade of hepatotoxicity, 12 (16.4%) of them was grade 2 hepatotoxicity. Of these patients, 11 (44%) received palbociclib, 13 (52%) received ribociclib, and 1 (4%) received palbociclib and ribociclib. In patients who were treated with palbociclib, 1 (2.9%) developed grade 3 hepatotoxicity and 1 (2.9%) developed grade 4 hepatotoxicity. Of those who received ribociclib, 3 (8.5%) developed grade 3 hepatotoxicity and 2 (5.7%) developed grade 4 hepatotoxicity. Conclusions: In conclusion, it can be stated that ribociclib is more toxic to the liver than palbociclib, since patients who received ribociclib and developed grade 3-4 hepatotoxicity had no disease that facilitates hepatotoxicity. We believe that more comprehensive studies are needed to determine the factors that facilitate hepatotoxicity such as liver metastasis and to select the drug accordingly will prevent patients from being devoid of this group of drugs and discontinuing their treatment due to toxicity.

___

  • 1.Ferlay J, Colombet M, Soerjomataram I, et al. Cancer statistics for the year 2020: An overview. Int J Cancer. 2021; 149(4): 778-89. https://doi.org/10.1002/ijc.33588
  • 2.Perez EA. Treatment strategies for advanced hormone receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor 2-negative breast cancer: the role of treat¬ment order. Drug Resistance Updates. 2016; 24: 13-22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.drup.2015.11.001
  • 3.Ditsch N, Schmidt M. Treatment of Advanced Hormone Receptor-Positive (HR+) HER2-negative Breast Cancer. Geburtshilfe Frauenheilkd. 2019 Dec;79(12):1328-35. https://doi.org/10.1055/a-1037-5205
  • 4.Kurebayashi J. Endocrine-resistant breast cancer: Underlying mecha-nisms and strategies for overcoming resistance. Breast Cancer. 2003; 10(2):112-9. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02967635
  • 5.Osborne CK, Schiff R. Mechanisms of Endocrine Resistance in Breast Cancer. Annu Rev Med. 2011; 62(1): 233-47. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-med-070909-182917
  • 6.Turner NC, Slamon DJ, Ro J, et al. Overall Survival with Palbociclib and Ful¬vestrant in Advanced Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 20185; 379(20): 1926-36. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa1810527
  • 7.Slamon DJ, Neven P, Chia S, et al. Ribociclib plus fulvestrant for post-meno¬pausal women with hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth fac¬tor receptor 2-negative advanced breast cancer in the phase III randomized MONALEESA-3 trial: updated overall survival. Annals of Oncology. 2021; 32(8): 1015-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.annonc.2021.05.353
  • 8.Hortobagyi GN, Stemmer SM, Burris HA et al. Ribociclib as First-Line Ther¬apy for HR-Positive, Advanced Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(18): 1738-48. 9.Sledge GW, Toi M, Neven P, et al. MONARCH 2: Abemaciclib in Combina-tion with Fulvestrant in Women With HR+/HER2− Advanced Breast Cancer Who Had Progressed While Receiving Endocrine Therapy. JCO. 2017; 35(25): 2875-84. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2017.73.7585
  • 10.Cardoso F, Senkus E, Costa A, et al. 4th ESO-ESMO International Con-sensus Guidelines for Advanced Breast Cancer (ABC 4). Annals of Oncol-ogy. 2018; 29(8): 1634-57. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdy192
  • 11.Cortés J, Kim SB, Chung WP, et al. Trastuzumab Deruxtecan versus Trastuzumab Emtansine for Breast Cancer. N Engl J Med. 2022; 386(12): 1143-54. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa2115022
  • 12.Kellokumpu-Lehtinen P, Lantto A, Kokko R, et al. Paclitaxel-ifosfamide for anthracycline-resistant advanced breast cancer. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res. 2002; 22(2): 47-53.
  • 13.Jones SE, Erban J, Overmoyer B, Budd GT, et al. Randomized Phase III Study of Docetaxel Compared with Paclitaxel in Metastatic Breast Cancer. JCO. 2005; 23(24): 5542-51. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.02.027
  • 14.Spring LM, Wander SA, Zangardi M, et al. CDK 4/6 Inhibitors in Breast Can¬cer: Current Controversies and Future Directions. Curr Oncol Rep. 2019; 21(3): 25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11912-019-0769-3
  • 15.LiverTox: Clinical and Research Information on Drug-Induced Liver Injury. Bethesda (MD): National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Dis¬eases; 2012.
  • 16.Cristofanilli M, Turner NC, Bondarenko I, et al. Fulvestrant plus pal-bociclib versus fulvestrant plus placebo for treatment of hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer that pro-gressed on previous endo¬crine therapy (PALOMA-3): final analysis of the multicentre, double-blind, phase 3 randomised controlled trial. The Lan-cet Oncology. 2016; 17(4): 425-39. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1470-2045(15)00613-0
  • 17.Farhat F, Tarabaih M, Kanj A, et al. Palbociclib safety and efficacy be-yond Ribociclib-induced liver toxicity in metastatic hormone-receptors positive breast cancer patient. Anti-Cancer Drugs. 2020; 31(1): 85-9. https://doi.org/10.1097/CAD.0000000000000845
Çukurova Anestezi ve Cerrahi Bilimler Dergisi-Cover
  • Yayın Aralığı: Yılda 3 Sayı
  • Başlangıç: 2018
  • Yayıncı: Merthan Tunay
Sayıdaki Diğer Makaleler

Abdominal aortik anevrizmalı hastalarda kolonik divertikül varlığının değerlendirilmesi

Özlem ÇAKIRKÖSE, Ahmet DÜLGER, Derya SEVEN, Bilge ÇAKIR, Ugur KESICI

Omniflow II biyosentetik greftlerle arteriyel revaskülarizasyonun uzun dönem sonuçları: tek merkez deneyimi

Baran ŞİMŞEK, Davut AZBOY, Zeki TEMİZTÜRK

Glioblastoma Multiforme’de Konkomitant ve Adjuvant Temozolomid’in Prognoz ve Sağkalıma Etkisi

Can SEZER, Rıdvan AÇIKALIN, Emre BİLGİN, Tahsin ERMAN, Aykut SEZER, İnan GEZGİN, Servet YAVUZ

Erken Evre Relapsing-Remitting Multipl Skleroz Hastalarında Talamus Alanı ile Bilişsel İşlevler Arasındaki İlişkinin Değerlendirilmesi

Selahattin AYAS, Sibel CANBAZ KABAY

Evaluation Of Vancomycin Therapeutic Drug Monitoring in Intensive Care Units of a University Hospital

Nursel SURMELİOGLU, Merve BERBER

COVİD-19 Sonrası Pulmoner Rehabilitasyon Farkındalık ve Solunum Egzersizlerine Uyum Düzeyi

Sıdıka ŞEN, Pelin DURU ÇETİNKAYA

Lokal İleri Meme Kanseri Hastalarında Neoadjuvan Tedavi Sonrası Patolojik Tam Yanıtı Tahmin Etmede Radyolojik Yöntemlerin Etkinliği

Serkan ERKAN, Hakan YABANOĞLU, Ramazan GÜNDOĞDU, Tevfik AVCI, Eda ÇAKMAK

Postherpetik Nevraljili Hastaların Eğitimi İçin YouTube'un Kalitesini Değerlendirmek

Rekib SAÇAKLIDIR, Ekim Can ÖZTÜRK

COMPARISON OF EXCISIONAL STAPLER HEMORRHOIDOPEXY METHOD(SH) AND NON-EXCISIONAL ARTERIAL DETECTION LIGATION METHOD(ADL); ONE YEAR FOLLOW-UP

Nevin SAKOĞLU, Aziz OCAKOĞLU

Comparison of Noncontact Plating with Conventional Methods and Osteosynthesis Techniques in the Treatment of Pediatric Femoral Fractures

Mesut ULUÖZ, Ahmet KAPUKAYA