OBJECTIVE: In advanced breast cancer, endocrine therapy is preferred in the absence of visceral crisis. Cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors (CDKi) are the gold standards. The selection of subsequent treatments after CDKi treatment is still controversial, and the efficacy of everolimus (EVE) combinations is unknown. In this study, we aimed to investigate the efficacy of EVE after CDKi administration in real-life experiences.
METHODS: The study received data from 208 patients from 26 cancer centers. Demographic and histologic features, diagnosis, progression, last visit dates, and toxicities were recorded. This study was a retrospective case series.
RESULTS: One hundred and seven patients received palbociclib, while 101 patients received ribociclib as a CDKi. The overall response and disease control rates of EVE combinations were 60% and 88%, respectively. In univariate analysis, the absence of liver metastasis, age > 40 years, better type of response, and immediate treatment after CDKi were related to increased progression-free survival. Liver metastasis and response type were significantly associated with overall survival. In the multivariate analysis, response remained significant in terms of progression-free survival, while response type, liver metastatic disease, and hematologic toxicity were prognostic in terms of overall survival.
CONCLUSIONS: This study provides evidence of the benefits of EVE combinations after CDKi treatment. EVE combinations may be more appropriate for patients with non-liver metastasis, and the first treatment response shows the benefit of treatment. In addition, immediate treatment after CDKi treatment is more beneficial than later lines of treatment.

The mTOR-inhibitor everolimus is a precision drug with antiepileptogenic properties approved for treatment of epilepsy in persons with tuberous sclerosis complex (TSC) in combination with other antiseizure medications (ASMs). However, the pharmacokinetic variability of everolimus is scarcely described, and the available information on pharmacokinetic interactions is scarce. The purpose of this study was to investigate pharmacokinetic variability of everolimus in patients with TSC, and the impact of age, sex and comedication. In this retrospective observational study we used anonymized data from medical records of patients with TSC using everolimus in Norway and Denmark, 2012 to 2020. Long-term therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) identified inter-patient and intra-patient variability. The study included 59 patients, (36 females (61%)), median age 22 (range 3-59 years). Polytherapy was used in 50 patients (85%). The most frequently used ASMs were lamotrigine (n = 21), valproate (n = 17), and levetiracetam (n = 13). Blood concentrations of everolimus were measured in all patients. Pharmacokinetic variability of everolimus between patients was extensive, as demonstrated by a 24-fold variability from minimum-maximum concentration/dose (C/D)-ratios. The coefficient of variation (CV) for intra-patient (n = 59) and inter-patient variability (n = 47, ≥3 measurements) was 40% and 43%, respectively. The C/D-ratio of everolimus was 50% lower in 13 patients (22%) using enzyme-inducing ASMs compared to the 30 patients who did not (0.7 vs 1.4 ng/mL mg, P < .05). Age and sex were not significantly associated with changes in C/D-ratios of everolimus. Long-term TDM identified extensive variability in concentrations over time for everolimus both within and between patients, where comedication with enzyme-inducing ASMs was an important contributing factor. The findings suggest a need for TDM in patients with TSC treated with everolimus.

UNASSIGNED: Clinical trial data on adjuvant therapy in patients with non-clear cell renal cell carcinoma (RCC) are scant.
UNASSIGNED: To evaluate the effect of adjuvant everolimus after nephrectomy on recurrence-free survival (RFS) and overall survival (OS) in patients with localized papillary and chromophobe RCC.
UNASSIGNED: This prespecified subgroup analysis of a phase 3 randomized clinical trial, EVEREST, included patients enrolled between April 1, 2011, and September 15, 2016. Eligible patients had fully resected RCC at intermediate-high risk (pT1 grade 3-4, N0 to pT3a grade 1-2, N0) or very-high risk (pT3a grade 3-4 to pT4 any grade or N+) for recurrence who had received radical or partial nephrectomy. Final analyses was completed in March 2022.
UNASSIGNED: The intervention group received 54 weeks of everolimus (10 mg orally daily); the control group received a matching placebo.
UNASSIGNED: The main outcomes were RFS, OS, and rates of adverse events. For testing the hazard ratio (HR) for treatment effect, a Cox regression model was used for both OS and RFS.
UNASSIGNED: Of 1545 adult patients with treatment-naive, nonmetastatic, fully resected RCC in EVEREST, 109 had papillary RCC (median [range] age, 60 [19-81] years; 82 [75%] male; 50 patients [46%] with very high-risk disease) and 99 had chromophobe RCC (median [range] age 51 [18-71] years; 53 [54%] male; 34 patients [34%] with very high-risk disease). Among 57 patients with papillary RCC in the intervention group, 26 (46%) completed 54 weeks of treatment, and among 53 patients with chromophobe RCC in the intervention group, 26 (49%) completed 54 weeks of treatment. With a median (IQR) follow-up of 76 (61-96) months, adjuvant everolimus did not improve RFS compared with placebo in either papillary RCC (5-year RFS: 62% vs 70%; HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.61-2.33; P = .61) or chromophobe RCC (5-year RFS: 79% vs 77%; HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.37-2.13; P = .79). In the combined non-clear RCC cohort, grade 3 or higher adverse events occurred in 48% of patients who received everolimus and 9% of patients who received placebo.
UNASSIGNED: In this clinical trial assessing the use of adjuvant everolimus, postoperative everolimus did not show evidence of improved RFS among patients with papillary or chromophobe RCC, and results from the study do not support adjuvant everolimus for this cohort. However, since the lower bounds of the 95% CIs were 0.61 and 0.89, respectively, potential treatment benefit in these subgroups cannot be ruled out.
UNASSIGNED: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01120249.

Everolimus and peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT, 177Lu-DOTATATE) are 2 treatments recommended in guidelines for gastroenteropancreatic metastatic neuroendocrine tumors. However, the best treatment sequence remains unknown. Methods: We designed a retrospective multicenter study that included patients from the national prospective database of the Groupe d\'Étude des Tumeurs Endocrines who had been treated using everolimus and PRRT between April 2004 and October 2022. The primary aim was to compare the 2 treatments (everolimus and PRRT) in terms of efficacy and safety, and the secondary aim was to evaluate the sequences (PRRT followed by everolimus or everolimus followed by PRRT) based on overall progression-free survival (PFS) (PFS during first treatment + PFS during second treatment) in patients with metastatic neuroendocrine tumors. Results: Both treatments were used for 84 patients. The objective response rate and median PFS were 5 (6.0%) and 16.1 mo (95% CI, 11.5-20.7 mo), respectively, under everolimus and 19 (22.6%) and 24.5 mo (95% CI, 17.7-31.3 mo), respectively, for PRRT. The safety profile was also better for PRRT. Median overall PFS was 43.2 mo (95% CI, 33.7-52.7 mo) for the everolimus-PRRT sequence and 30.6 mo (95% CI, 17.8-43.4 mo) for the PRRT-everolimus sequence (hazard ratio, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.39-1.24; P = 0.22). Conclusion: PRRT was more effective and less toxic than everolimus. Overall PFS was similar between the 2 sequences, suggesting case-by-case discussion if the patient is eligible for both treatments, but PRRT should be used first when an objective response is needed or in frail populations.

BACKGROUND: Long-term clinical outcomes of early intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) findings in a prospective cohort of heart transplantation (HTx) patients have not been evaluated.
METHODS: This study included patients from 20 centers across Europe and North and South America among the original cohort of the RAD B253 study. Among these patients, 91 had paired IVUS images at baseline and 1-year post-transplant: everolimus 1.5 mg group (n = 25), everolimus 1.5 mg group (n = 33), and azathioprine 3.0 group (n = 33). The primary outcome was a composite of cardiovascular death, retransplantation, myocardial infarction (MI), coronary revascularization, and cardiac allograft vasculopathy (CAV) within a 10-year follow-up period. The secondary outcome was all-cause death, cardiovascular death, retransplantation, MI, coronary revascularization, and CAV. Donor disease was defined as baseline maximal intimal thickness (MIT) >0.66 mm, and rapid progression was defined as a change in MIT > 0.59 mm at 1 year.
RESULTS: Donor disease (46 patients) was associated with a higher incidence of the primary outcome (hazard ratio (HR) 4.444, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.946-10.146, p < 0.001). Rapid progression (44 patients) was associated with a significantly higher incidence of the primary outcome (HR 2.942, 95% CI 1.383-6.260, p = 0.005). Higher-risk features on IVUS (positive both donor disease and rapid progression) were independently associated with poor clinical outcomes (HR 4.800, 95% CI 1.816-12.684, p = 0.002).
CONCLUSIONS: An increase in baseline MIT and a change in first-year MIT in IVUS post HTx was associated with poor outcomes up to 10 years. Early IVUS findings can be considered as surrogate endpoints for evaluating long-term outcomes in HTx clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: Early substitution of calcineurin inhibitor (CNI) with mammalian target of rapamycin inhibitors has been shown to improve kidney function and reduce intimal hyperplasia in heart transplant (HTx) recipients but data on long-term outcome of such a regime are still sparse.
METHODS: In the SCHEDULE trial, 115 de novo HTx recipients were randomized to (1) everolimus with reduced exposure of CNI followed by CNI withdrawal at week 7-11 post-transplant or (2) standard-exposure with CNI. Both groups received mycophenolate mofetil and corticosteroids. Herein we report on the 10-12-year long-term follow-up of the study.
RESULTS: A total of 78 patients attended the follow-up visit at a median time of 11 years post-transplant. In the everolimus intention to treat (ITT) group 87.5% (35/40 patients) still received everolimus and in the CNI ITT group 86.8% (33/38) still received CNI. Estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) (least square mean (95% CI)) at the 10-12 years visit was 82.7 (74.2-91.1) ml/min/1.73 m2 and 61.0 (52.3-69.7) ml/min/1.73 m2 in the everolimus and CNI group, respectively (p < 0.001). Graft function measured by ejection fraction, ECG, NT-proBNP and drug safety were comparable between groups. During the study period there was a total of 28 deaths, but there was no difference in survival between the everolimus and the CNI group (aHR 0.61 (95% CI 0.29-1.30) p = 0.20). For the composite endpoint of death, re-transplantation, myocardial infarction, PCI, dialysis, kidney transplantation or cancer no between group differences were found (aHR 1.0 (95% CI 0.57-1.77) p = 0.99).
CONCLUSIONS: De novo HTx patients randomized to everolimus and low dose CNI followed by CNI free therapy sustained significantly better long-term kidney function than patients randomized to standard therapy. The graft function at 10-12 years was similar in both groups and there was no difference in survival.

UNASSIGNED: Studies prospectively monitoring de novo donor-specific antibodies (dnDSAs) and their clinical impact are sparse. This substudy of ATHENA was initiated to evaluate the effect of everolimus (EVR) or mycophenolic acid (MPA) in combination with reduced calcineurin inhibitor (CNI, tacrolimus [TAC] or cyclosporine [CsA]) on the formation of human leukocyte antibodies (HLA), including dnDSA, and the impact on clinical outcomes in kidney transplant (KTx) recipients.
UNASSIGNED: All eligible patients were randomized 1:1:1 to receive either EVR + TAC, EVR + CsA or MPA + TAC, with basiliximab induction plus steroids after transplantation up to Month 12. The incidence of dnDSA by treatment group and the association with clinical events were evaluated descriptively as an exploratory objective in the intent-to-treat (ITT) and per-protocol (PP) populations with at least one antibody assessment.
UNASSIGNED: Overall, none of the patients in the EVR + TAC group had either dnDSA or antibody mediated rejection (PP or ITT population) and only one patient with dnDSA in the TAC + MPA group had antibody mediated rejection.
UNASSIGNED: The EVR regimen was comparable to MPA regimen with an extremely low incidence of dnDSA over 1 year of treatment.

BACKGROUND: Therapeutic drug monitoring (TDM) - performing dose adjustments based on measured drug levels and established pharmacokinetic (PK) targets - could optimise treatment with drugs that show large interpatient variability in exposure. We evaluated the feasibility of TDM for multiple oral targeted therapies. Here we report on drugs for which routine TDM is not feasible.
METHODS: We evaluated drug cohorts from the Dutch Pharmacology Oncology Group - TDM study. Based on PK levels taken at pre-specified time points, PK-guided interventions were performed. Feasibility of TDM was evaluated, and based on the success and practicability of TDM, cohorts could be closed.
RESULTS: For 10 out of 24 cohorts TDM was not feasible and inclusion was closed. A high incidence of adverse events resulted in closing the cabozantinib, dabrafenib/trametinib, everolimus, regorafenib and vismodegib cohort. The enzalutamide and erlotinib cohorts were closed because almost all PK levels were above target. Other, non-pharmacological reasons led to closing the palbociclib, olaparib and tamoxifen cohort.
CONCLUSIONS: Although TDM could help personalising treatment for many drugs, the above-mentioned reasons can influence its feasibility, usefulness and clinical applicability. Therefore, routine TDM is not advised for cabozantinib, dabrafenib/trametinib, enzalutamide, erlotinib, everolimus, regorafenib and vismodegib. Nonetheless, TDM remains valuable for individual clinical decisions.

BACKGROUND: The previous first-in-human study established the preliminary safety and effectiveness of the novel thin-strut iron bioresorbable scaffold (IBS). The current study aims to directly compare the imaging and physiological efficacy, and clinical outcomes of IBS with contemporary metallic drug-eluting stents (DES).
METHODS: A total of 518 patients were randomly allocated to treatment with IBS (257 patients) or metallic DES (261 patients) from 36 centers in China. The study is powered to test noninferiority of the IBS compared with the metallic everolimus-eluting stent in terms of the primary endpoint of in-segment late lumen loss at 2 years, and major secondary endpoints including 2-year quantitative flow ratio and cross-sectional mean flow area measured by optical coherence tomography (OCT) (limited to the OCT subgroup, 25 patients in each group).
CONCLUSIONS: This will be the first powered randomized trial investigating the safety and efficacy of the novel thin-strut IBS compared to a contemporary metallic DES. The findings will provide valuable evidence for future research of this kind and the application of metallic bioresorbable scaffolds.

OBJECTIVE: Phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase/AKT-serine threonine kinase/mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) pathway abnormalities contribute to endocrine resistance. Everolimus, an mTOR inhibitor, improved progression-free survival in hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer (BC) when combined with endocrine therapy (ET). In this phase III randomized, placebo-controlled trial, we assessed the efficacy of everolimus + ET as adjuvant therapy in high-risk, hormone receptor-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative BC after adjuvant/neoadjuvant chemotherapy.
METHODS: Patients were randomly assigned 1:1 to physician\'s choice ET and 1 year of everolimus (10 mg orally once daily) or placebo stratified by risk group. The primary end point was invasive disease-free survival (IDFS) evaluated by a stratified log-rank test with the hazard ratio (HR) estimated by Cox regression. Subset analyses included preplanned evaluation by risk group and exploratory analyses by menopausal status and age. Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and safety. Everolimus did not improve IDFS/OS when added to ET in patients with early-stage high-risk, hormone receptor-positive BC.
RESULTS: One thousand and nine hundred thirty-nine patients were randomly assigned with 1,792 eligible for analysis. Overall, no benefit of everolimus was seen for IDFS (HR, 0.94 [95% CI, 0.77 to 1.14]) or OS (HR, 0.97 [95% CI, 0.75 to 1.26]). The assumption of proportional hazards was not met suggesting significant variability in the HR over time since the start of treatment. In an unplanned subgroup analysis among postmenopausal patients (N = 1,221), no difference in IDFS (HR, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.86 to 1.36]) or OS (HR, 1.19 [95% CI, 0.89 to 1.60]) was seen. In premenopausal patients (N = 571), everolimus improved both IDFS (HR, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.44 to 0.94]) and OS (HR, 0.49 [95% CI, 0.28 to 0.86]). Treatment completion rates were lower in the everolimus arm compared with placebo (48% v 73%) with higher grade 3 and 4 adverse events (35% v 7%).
CONCLUSIONS: One year of adjuvant everolimus + ET did not improve overall outcomes. Subset analysis suggests mTOR inhibition as a possible target for patients who remain premenopausal after chemotherapy.