Sylvie Giacchetti

Dr. Sylvie Giacchetti


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

35Years (1992-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
10 November 2022 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
TBThomas BACHELOT
Thomas BACHELOT
PCPaul Cottu
Paul Cottu
SCSylvie Chabaud
Sylvie Chabaud
FDFlorence Dalenc
Florence Dalenc
DADjelila Allouache
Djelila Allouache
FAFabrice Andre
Fabrice Andre
PURPOSE: Everolimus, an oral inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin, improves progression-free survival in combination with endocrine therapy (ET) in postmenopausal women with aromatase inhibitor–resistant metastatic breast cancer. However, the benefit of adding everolimus to ET in the adjuvant setting in early breast cancer is unknown. PATIENTS AND METHODS: In this randomized double-blind phase III study, women with high-risk, hormone receptor–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative primary breast cancer were randomly assigned to everolimus or placebo for 2 years combined with standard ET. Stratification factors included ET agent, receipt of neoadjuvant versus adjuvant chemotherapy, progesterone receptor status, duration of ET before random assignment, and lymph node involvement. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). The trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (identifier: NCT01805271 ). RESULTS: Between June 2013 and March 2020, 1,278 patients were randomly allocated to receive everolimus or placebo. At the first interim analysis, the trial was stopped for futility and a full analysis undertaken once data snapshot complete. One hundred forty-seven patients have had a DFS event reported and at 3 years, DFS did not differ between patients who received ET plus everolimus (88% [95% CI, 85 to 91]) or ET plus placebo (89% [95% CI, 86 to 91; hazard ratio, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.69 to 1.32; P = .77]). Grade ≥ 3 adverse events were reported in 22.9% of patients (29.9% with everolimus v 15.9% with placebo, P < .001). 53.4% everolimus-treated patients permanently discontinued experimental treatment early compared with placebo-treated 22.3%. CONCLUSION: Among high-risk patients, everolimus added to adjuvant ET did not improve DFS. Tolerability was a concern, with more than half of patients stopping everolimus before study completion. Everolimus cannot be recommended in the adjuvant setting.

1 April 2017 in European Journal of Cancer
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
SGSylvie Giacchetti
Sylvie Giacchetti
AHAnne-Sophie Hamy
Anne-Sophie Hamy
SDSuzette Delaloge
Suzette Delaloge
EBEtienne Brain
Etienne Brain
FBFrederique BERGER
Frederique BERGER
JPJean-Yves Pierga
Jean-Yves Pierga

19 January 2022 in Reproductive BioMedicine Online
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MMManon MANGIARDI
Manon MANGIARDI
CSClara Sebbag
Clara Sebbag
CRChristine Rousset-Jablonski
Christine Rousset-Jablonski
IRIsabelle Ray-Coquard
Isabelle Ray-Coquard
CBClémentine Berkach
Clémentine Berkach
AHAnne Sophie Hamy
Anne Sophie Hamy

1 January 1992 in Drugs
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MMM. Marty
M. Marty
JEJ. M. Extra
J. M. Extra
VDV. Dieras
V. Dieras
SGSylvie Giacchetti
Sylvie Giacchetti
SOS. Ohana
S. Ohana
MEMarc Espie
Marc Espie

10 April 2024 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PGPatricia A. Ganz
Patricia A. Ganz
HBHanna Bandos
Hanna Bandos
TŠTanja Španić
Tanja Španić
SFSue Friedman
Sue Friedman
VMVolkmar Mueller
Volkmar Mueller
ATAndrew N.J. Tutt
Andrew N.J. Tutt
PURPOSE: The OlympiA randomized phase III trial compared 1 year of olaparib (OL) or placebo (PL) as adjuvant therapy in patients with germline BRCA1/2, high-risk human epidermal growth factor receptor 2–negative early breast cancer after completing (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy ([N]ACT), surgery, and radiotherapy. The patient-reported outcome primary hypothesis was that OL-treated patients may experience greater fatigue during treatment. METHODS: Data were collected before random assignment, and at 6, 12, 18, and 24 months. The primary end point was fatigue, measured with the Functional Assessment of Chronic Illness Therapy-Fatigue scale. Secondary end points, assessed with the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality of Life Questionnaire, Core 30 item, included nausea and vomiting (NV), diarrhea, and multiple functional domains. Scores were compared between treatment groups using mixed model for repeated measures. Two-sided P values <.05 were statistically significant for the primary end point. All secondary end points were descriptive. RESULTS: One thousand five hundred and thirty-eight patients (NACT: 746, ACT: 792) contributed to the analysis. Fatigue severity was statistically significantly greater for OL versus PL, but not clinically meaningfully different by prespecified criteria (≥3 points) at 6 months (diff OL v PL: NACT: –1.3 [95% CI, –2.4 to –0.2]; P = .022; ACT: –1.3 [95% CI, –2.3 to –0.2]; P = .017) and 12 months (NACT: –1.6 [95% CI, –2.8 to –0.3]; P = .017; ACT: –1.3 [95% CI, –2.4 to –0.2]; P = .025). There were no significant differences in fatigue severity between treatment groups at 18 and 24 months. NV severity was worse in patients treated with OL compared with PL at 6 months (NACT: 6.0 [95% CI, 4.1 to 8.0]; ACT: 5.3 [95% CI, 3.4 to 7.2]) and 12 months (NACT: 6.4 [95% CI, 4.4 to 8.3]; ACT: 4.5 [95% CI, 2.8 to 6.1]). During treatment, there were some clinically meaningful differences between groups for other symptoms but not for function subscales or global health status. CONCLUSION: Treatment-emergent symptoms from OL were limited, generally resolving after treatment ended. OL- and PL-treated patients had similar functional scores, slowly improving during the 24 months after (N)ACT and there was no clinically meaningful persistence of fatigue severity in OL-treated patients.

7 May 2024 in EBioMedicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
SGSylvie Giacchetti
Sylvie Giacchetti
ELEnora Laas
Enora Laas
TBThomas Bachelot
Thomas Bachelot
JLJérome Lemonnier
Jérome Lemonnier
FAFabrice André
Fabrice André
AHAnne-Sophie Hamy
Anne-Sophie Hamy
Circadian rhythms regulate cellular physiology and could influence the efficacy of endocrine therapy (ET) in breast cancer (BC). We prospectively tested this hypothesis within the UNIRAD adjuvant phase III trial (NCT01805271). 1278 patients with high-risk hormonal receptor positive (HR+)/HER2 negative (HER2-) primary BC were randomly assigned to adjuvant ET with placebo or everolimus. Patients prospectively reported in a diary the daily timing of ET intake among four 6-h slots (06:00-11:59 (morning), 12:00-17:59 (afternoon), 18:00-23:59 (evening), or 24:00-05:59 (nighttime). The association between ET timing and disease-free survival (DFS) was a prespecified secondary endpoint of the trial and the results of this observational study are reported here. ET timing was recorded by 855 patients (67.2%). Patients declaring morning (n = 465, 54.4%) or afternoon (n = 45, 5.4%) ET intake were older than those declaring evening (n = 339, 39.6%) or nighttime (n = 5, 0.6%) intake. With a median follow-up of 46.7 months, 118 patients had a local (n = 30) or metastasis relapse (n = 84), and 41 patients died. ET intake timing was not associated with DFS in the whole population (HR = 0.77, 95% CI [0.53-1.12]). The association between ET intake timing and DFS according to the stratification factors revealed interactions with ET agent (tamoxifen versus Aromatase inhibitors (AI) with an increased DFS in the group of evening/nighttime versus morning/afternoon tamoxifen intake (HR = 0.43, 95% CI [0.22-0.85]), while no association was found for AI intake (HR = 1.07, 95% CI [0.68-1.69]). The interaction between ET intake timing and ET agent remained in multivariable analysis (HR = 0.38 [0.16-0.91]). Tamoxifen intake in the evening/nighttime could be recommended in patients with high-risk HR+/HER2- BC while awaiting for results from further ET timing studies. UNIRAD was Supported by a grant from the French Ministry of Health PHRC 2012 and received funding from La Ligue contre le Cancer, Cancer Research-UK, Myriad Genetics, and Novartis.