Pierfranco Conte

Prof. Dr. Pierfranco Conte

Department of Surgery, Oncology and Gastroenterology, University of Padova, Istituto Oncologico Veneto IOV IRCCS, 35128 Padova, Italy
orcid

Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

51Years (1976-Present)

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

Representative Publications

View All Publications
10 August 2017 in New England Journal of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
MRMark Robson
Mark Robson
SISeock-Ah Im
Seock-Ah Im
ESElżbieta Senkus
Elżbieta Senkus
BXBinghe Xu
Binghe Xu
SDSusan M. Domchek
Susan M. Domchek
Pierfranco ContePierfranco Conte
Pierfranco Conte
Olaparib is an oral poly(adenosine diphosphate–ribose) polymerase inhibitor that has promising antitumor activity in patients with metastatic breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation. We conducted a randomized, open-label, phase 3 trial in which olaparib monotherapy was compared with standard therapy in patients with a germline BRCA mutation and human epidermal growth factor receptor type 2 (HER2)–negative metastatic breast cancer who had received no more than two previous chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease. Patients were randomly assigned, in a 2:1 ratio, to receive olaparib tablets (300 mg twice daily) or standard therapy with single-agent chemotherapy of the physician’s choice (capecitabine, eribulin, or vinorelbine in 21-day cycles). The primary end point was progression-free survival, which was assessed by blinded independent central review and was analyzed on an intention-to-treat basis. Of the 302 patients who underwent randomization, 205 were assigned to receive olaparib and 97 were assigned to receive standard therapy. Median progression-free survival was significantly longer in the olaparib group than in the standard-therapy group (7.0 months vs. 4.2 months; hazard ratio for disease progression or death, 0.58; 95% confidence interval, 0.43 to 0.80; P<0.001). The response rate was 59.9% in the olaparib group and 28.8% in the standard-therapy group. The rate of grade 3 or higher adverse events was 36.6% in the olaparib group and 50.5% in the standard-therapy group, and the rate of treatment discontinuation due to toxic effects was 4.9% and 7.7%, respectively. Among patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer and a germline BRCA mutation, olaparib monotherapy provided a significant benefit over standard therapy; median progression-free survival was 2.8 months longer and the risk of disease progression or death was 42% lower with olaparib monotherapy than with standard therapy. (Funded by AstraZeneca; OlympiAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02000622.)

16 May 2019 in New England Journal of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
FAFabrice André
Fabrice André
ECEva Ciruelos
Eva Ciruelos
GRGabor Rubovszky
Gabor Rubovszky
MCMario Campone
Mario Campone
SLSibylle Loibl
Sibylle Loibl
DJDejan Juric
Dejan Juric
PIK3CA mutations occur in approximately 40% of patients with hormone receptor (HR)–positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)–negative breast cancer. The PI3Kα-specific inhibitor alpelisib has shown antitumor activity in early studies.

17 September 2000 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
HMH. von der Maase
H. von der Maase
SHS.W. Hansen
S.W. Hansen
JRJ.T. Roberts
J.T. Roberts
LDL. Dogliotti
L. Dogliotti
TOT. Oliver
T. Oliver
Pierfranco ContePierfranco Conte
Pierfranco Conte
PURPOSE: Gemcitabine plus cisplatin (GC) and methotrexate, vinblastine, doxorubicin, and cisplatin (MVAC) were compared in patients with locally advanced or metastatic transitional-cell carcinoma (TCC) of the urothelium. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients with stage IV TCC and no prior systemic chemotherapy were randomized to GC (gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 days 1, 8, and 15; cisplatin 70 mg/m2 day 2) or standard MVAC every 28 days for a maximum of six cycles. RESULTS: Four hundred five patients were randomized (GC, n = 203; MVAC, n = 202). The groups were well-balanced with respect to prognostic factors. Overall survival was similar on both arms (hazards ratio [HR], 1.04; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.32; P = .75), as were time to progressive disease (HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.30), time to treatment failure (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.72 to 1.10), and response rate (GC, 49%; MVAC, 46%). More GC patients completed six cycles of therapy, with fewer dose adjustments. The toxic death rate was 1% on the GC arm and 3% on the MVAC arm. More GC than MVAC patients had grade 3/4 anemia (27% v 18%, respectively) and thrombocytopenia (57% v 21%, respectively). On both arms, the RBC transfusion rate was 13 of 100 cycles and grade 3/4 hemorrhage or hematuria was 2%; the platelet transfusion rate was four patients per 100 cycles and two patients per 100 cycles on GC and MVAC, respectively. More MVAC patients, compared with GC patients, had grade 3/4 neutropenia (82% v 71%, respectively), neutropenic fever (14% v 2%, respectively), neutropenic sepsis (12% v 1%, respectively), and grade 3/4 mucositis (22% v 1%, respectively) and alopecia (55% v 11%, respectively). Quality of life was maintained during treatment on both arms; however, more patients on GC fared better regarding weight, performance status, and fatigue. CONCLUSION: GC provides a similar survival advantage to MVAC with a better safety profile and tolerability. This better-risk benefit ratio should change the standard of care for patients with locally advanced and metastatic TCC from MVAC to GC.

3 November 2016 in New England Journal of Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
PDF file
GHGabriel N. Hortobagyi
Gabriel N. Hortobagyi
SSSalomon M. Stemmer
Salomon M. Stemmer
HBHoward A. Burris
Howard A. Burris
YYYoon-Sim Yap
Yoon-Sim Yap
GSGabe S. Sonke
Gabe S. Sonke
JOJoyce O’sHaughnessy
Joyce O’sHaughnessy
The inhibition of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) could potentially overcome or delay resistance to endocrine therapy in advanced breast cancer that is positive for hormone receptor (HR) and negative for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2). In this randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 3 trial, we evaluated the efficacy and safety of the selective CDK4/6 inhibitor ribociclib combined with letrozole for first-line treatment in 668 postmenopausal women with HR-positive, HER2-negative recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had not received previous systemic therapy for advanced disease. We randomly assigned the patients to receive either ribociclib (600 mg per day on a 3-weeks-on, 1-week-off schedule) plus letrozole (2.5 mg per day) or placebo plus letrozole. The primary end point was investigator-assessed progression-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival, overall response rate, and safety. A preplanned interim analysis was performed on January 29, 2016, after 243 patients had disease progression or died. Prespecified criteria for superiority required a hazard ratio of 0.56 or less with P<1.29×10−5. The duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer in the ribociclib group than in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.43 to 0.72; P=3.29×10−6 for superiority). The median duration of follow-up was 15.3 months. After 18 months, the progression-free survival rate was 63.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 54.6 to 70.3) in the ribociclib group and 42.2% (95% CI, 34.8 to 49.5) in the placebo group. In patients with measurable disease at baseline, the overall response rate was 52.7% and 37.1%, respectively (P<0.001). Common grade 3 or 4 adverse events that were reported in more than 10% of the patients in either group were neutropenia (59.3% in the ribociclib group vs. 0.9% in the placebo group) and leukopenia (21.0% vs. 0.6%); the rates of discontinuation because of adverse events were 7.5% and 2.1%, respectively. Among patients receiving initial systemic treatment for HR-positive, HER2-negative advanced breast cancer, the duration of progression-free survival was significantly longer among those receiving ribociclib plus letrozole than among those receiving placebo plus letrozole, with a higher rate of myelosuppression in the ribociclib group. (Funded by Novartis Pharmaceuticals; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01958021.)

1 July 2005 in Journal of Clinical Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Closed access
MMMichel Marty
Michel Marty
FCFrancesco Cognetti
Francesco Cognetti
DMDominique Maraninchi
Dominique Maraninchi
RSRay Snyder
Ray Snyder
LMLouis Mauriac
Louis Mauriac
JEJean-Marc Extra
Jean-Marc Extra
Purpose: This randomized, multicenter trial compared first-line trastuzumab plus docetaxel versus docetaxel alone in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) –positive metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and Methods: Patients were randomly assigned to six cycles of docetaxel 100 mg/m2 every 3 weeks, with or without trastuzumab 4 mg/kg loading dose followed by 2 mg/kg weekly until disease progression. Results: A total of 186 patients received at least one dose of the study drug. Trastuzumab plus docetaxel was significantly superior to docetaxel alone in terms of overall response rate (61% v 34%; P = .0002), overall survival (median, 31.2 v 22.7 months; P = .0325), time to disease progression (median, 11.7 v 6.1 months; P = .0001), time to treatment failure (median, 9.8 v 5.3 months; P = .0001), and duration of response (median, 11.7 v 5.7 months; P = .009). There was little difference in the number and severity of adverse events between the arms. Grade 3 to 4 neutropenia was seen more commonly with the combination (32%) than with docetaxel alone (22%), and there was a slightly higher incidence of febrile neutropenia in the combination arm (23% v 17%). One patient in the combination arm experienced symptomatic heart failure (1%). Another patient experienced symptomatic heart failure 5 months after discontinuation of trastuzumab because of disease progression, while being treated with an investigational anthracycline for 4 months. Conclusion: Trastuzumab combined with docetaxel is superior to docetaxel alone as first-line treatment of patients with HER2-positive MBC in terms of overall survival, response rate, response duration, time to progression, and time to treatment failure, with little additional toxicity.

1 January 2020 in JAMA Oncology
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
GSGeorge W. Sledge
George W. Sledge
MTMasakazu Toi
Masakazu Toi
PNPatrick Neven
Patrick Neven
JSJoohyuk Sohn
Joohyuk Sohn
KIKenichi Inoue
Kenichi Inoue
ALAntonio Llombart-Cussac
Antonio Llombart-Cussac
Most patients with metastatic breast cancer have tumors that are hormone receptor (HR)-positive and are initially treated with endocrine therapy (ET).1-4 Although ET is an efficacious and well-tolerated therapy in most patients, resistance to ET and subsequent disease progression remains a major challenge.2 In an effort to improve treatment options, cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4 and CDK6) inhibitors in combination with ET have emerged as a standard-of-care treatment for patients with HR-positive, ERBB2 (formerly HER2)-negative advanced breast cancer (ABC) (eg, inoperable locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer).5-8