A phase II, multicenter, single-arm trial of eribulin as first- or second-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative advanced or metastatic breast cancer: evaluation of efficacy, safety, and patient-reported outcomes

Real world analysis of the efficacy and safety of eribulin compared to utidelone in combination with capecitabine for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The objective of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of subsequent chemotherapy with single eribulin or utidelone combined with a capecitabine regimen in patients with advanced breast cancer who had previously been treated with anthracyclines and paclitaxel.

METHODS

This work was a retrospective analysis of 85 patients from July 2018 to July 2023. Forty-two and 43 patients were treated with the eribulin regimen and the utidelone/capecitabine regimen, respectively. The endpoints included progression-free survival, overall survival, the objective remission rate and safety. Survival analyses and multifactorial analyses were performed via the Kaplan‒Meier method, log-rank test and Cox regression models.

RESULTS

As of 15 April 2024, the mPFS durations of the patients in the utidelone/capecitabine and eribulin treatment groups were 7.7 and 5.2 months, respectively, and the mOS durations were 22.0 and 18.2 months, respectively. Subgroup analyses revealed that in advanced first-line therapy, the mPFS durations of the utidelone/capecitabine group and the eribulin group were 11.8 and 7.0 months, respectively, and this difference was significant. In the eribulin treatment arm, the mPFS of first-line therapy was 7.0, whereas it was 3.3 months for posterior-line therapy, and this difference was significant. The most common adverse reactions were neurotoxicity, hand‒foot syndrome, hematological toxicity, gastrointestinal toxicity, and abnormalities in hepatic and renal functions.

CONCLUSIONS

In conclusion, either utidelone/capecitabine or eribulin chemotherapy may result in a survival benefit with a tolerable adverse effect profile and favorable safety profile in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The first-line use of eribulin resulted in better PFS and ORR than posterior-line use, and the combination of utidelone/capecitabine represents a more efficacious approach in the advanced first-line therapy of breast cancer.

Effectiveness, safety, and impact on quality of life of eribulin-based therapy in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer: A real-world analysis

INTRODUCTION

Eribulin is currently recommended for the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) pre-treated with taxanes and anthracyclines. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of eribulin and its impact on health-related quality of life in heavily pre-treated patients with MBC.

METHODS

Data from MBC patients who had received eribulin-based therapy at Beijing Cancer Hospital between January 2020 and July 2022 were analyzed retrospectively. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), adverse effects (AEs) and health-related quality of life (HRQoL) were assessed.

RESULTS

Data from 118 patients who had received eribulin to treat MBC were included. Median PFS was 4.2 months and median OS had not been reached. The ORR was 13.6% (16/118) and DCR was 75.4% (89/118). The median PFS in patients who received eribulin in second-line (26/118), third-line (29/118), or fourth-line or later (63/118) was 4.5, 4.2, and 3.9 months, respectively. The median OS in patients who received eribulin in third- or later line (n = 92) was 14.1 months. Patients who received eribulin combination therapy had a significantly longer median PFS compared with those who received eribulin monotherapy (4.5 vs. 3.4 months, p = 0.007) and there was a trend towards a longer median OS (not reached vs. 12.1 months). The most common grade 3-4 adverse events were neutropenia (22.9%), leukocytopenia (13.6%) and asthenia/fatigue (8.5%), without significant differences in safety between eribulin monotherapy and combination therapy. Quality of life was similar in patients who received eribulin monotherapy and combination therapy, except for cognitive function and nausea and vomiting symptoms, which were better with combination therapy.

CONCLUSIONS

The present study suggests that eribulin-based therapy is an effective treatment option and well tolerated for heavily pre-treated patients with MBC. Eribulin combination therapy might improve PFS and HRQoL compared with eribulin monotherapy.

Effectiveness of eribulin as first-line or second-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative hormone-resistant advanced or metastatic breast cancer: findings from the multi-institutional, prospective, observational KBCRN A001: E-SPEC study

BACKGROUND

The optimal positioning of eribulin treatment remains unclear. This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of eribulin administration as first- and second-line chemotherapy in patients with endocrine-resistant advanced or metastatic breast cancer (AMBC) in the real-world clinical setting.

METHODS

This multi-institutional prospective cohort study enrolled patients with triple-negative AMBC or estrogen receptor-positive AMBC refractory to at least one previous endocrine therapy. The overall survival (OS) from the start of first-line (OS1) and second-line chemotherapy (OS2) was assessed. Data analysis included real-world chemotherapy sequences of first- to third-line chemotherapy regimens. The adjusted hazard ratio (HR) with 95% confidence interval (CI) for treatment regimen comparison was calculated using a stratified proportional hazards model.

RESULTS

Among 201 patients enrolled, 180 were included in the final analysis. Eribulin was administered as first- and second-line chemotherapy to 46 (26.6%) and 70 (47.9%) patients, respectively. Median OS1 and OS2 were 2.25 (95% CI 1.07-2.68) and 1.75 (95% CI, 1.28-2.45) years for first- and second-line eribulin, respectively. Oral 5-FU followed by eribulin had a numerically longer OS1 (2.84 years) than the other sequences. Among patients who proceeded to second-line or later chemotherapy, the median OS1 for those treated with anthracycline or taxane as first- or second-line (n = 98) was 2.56 years (95% CI 2.27-2.74), while it was 2.87 years (95% CI 2.20-4.32) for those who avoided anthracycline and taxane as first- and second-line (n = 48) (adjusted HR, 1.20; 95% CI 0.70-2.06). In the exploratory analysis, OS1 was 2.55 (95% CI 2.14-2.75) and 2.91 years (95% CI 2.61-4.32) for those aged < 65 and ≥ 65 years, respectively (adjusted HR of ≥ 65, 0.91; 95% CI 0.56-1.46).

CONCLUSIONS

Eribulin or oral 5-FU administration in first- and second-line chemotherapy without anthracycline/taxane was acceptable in the real-world setting.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

This study is registered with Clinical Trials.gov (NCT 02,551,263).

Optimization of G-CSF dosing schedule in patients treated with eribulin: a modeling approach

BACKGROUND

Granulocyte colony-stimulating factors (G-CSF) are commonly given to limit chemotherapy-induced neutropenia, but, in case of weekly chemotherapy such as eribulin, their administration schedules remain empirical.

OBJECTIVES

This pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) study was conducted to establish the effect of different G-CSF regimens on neutropenia's incidence for patients treated by eribulin, to propose an optimal G-CSF dosing schedule.

METHODS

A population PK/PD model was developed to describe absolute neutrophil counts' (ANC) time course in 87 cancer patients receiving eribulin. The structural model considered ANC dynamics, neutropenic effect of eribulin and stimulating effect of G-CSF. Final model estimates were used to calculate neutropenia's incidence following different G-CSF dosing schedules for 1000 virtual subjects.

RESULTS

The final model successfully described most of the ANC time course for all patients. Simulations showed that a single G-CSF administration 48 h after each eribulin injection reduced the risk of severe neutropenia from 29.7 to 5.2%. Five days of G-CSF only after the second eribulin injection or no G-CSF administration induces similar incidence of neutropenia.

CONCLUSION

Simulations showed a single G-CSF administration 48 h after the end of each eribulin injection seems to be the optimal schedule to reduce eribulin-induced neutropenia. However, the new administration scheme should be tested in real life to evaluate its pertinence.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Eudract 2015-001753-32, 2015/01/26.

Effectiveness and safety of eribulin for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative metastatic breast cancer in a real-world population

BACKGROUND

Eribulin's clinical benefit remains unclear; so, studies analyzing its effectiveness in routine clinical practice are interesting.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This is a multicenter, retrospective study including patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative metastatic breast cancer which assesses effectiveness and safety of eribulin.

RESULTS

A total of 140 women were included, with a median age of 57 years. The median overall survival and progression-free survival were 8.8 (95% confidence interval: 6.1-11.4) and 2.8 months (95% confidence interval: 2.5-3.1), respectively. For patients with hormonal receptor expression, a significantly longer progression-free survival was observed: 3.4 (95%confidence interval: 2.3-4.5) versus triple negative: 2.0 (95%confidence interval: 1.7-2.3) months, p = 0.003. Also, those who had received capecitabine prior to eribulin had a higher median overall survival than those who had not received it (9.5 months, 95% confidence interval: 6.6-12.5 vs. 4.8 months, 95% confidence interval: 3.4-6.2; p = 0.001). When only triple-negative patients were included, median overall survival was 6.5 (95% confidence interval: 0.1-16.2) for those who had received previous capecitabine versus 4.3 (95% confidence interval: 2.8-5.8) months for patients who had not received it; p =0.006. The safety profile of eribulin was adequate.

CONCLUSION

Effectiveness of eribulin in a real-life human epidermal growth factor receptor-2--negative population is lower than that observed in clinical trials. Its benefit seems to be higher in patients with hormonal receptor expression and patients who had received capecitabine prior to eribulin. The safety profile of eribulin is adequate.

Clinical Utility of Eribulin Mesylate in the Treatment of Breast Cancer: A Chinese Perspective

Eribulin mesylate, a synthetic derivative of the anti-mitotic agent halichondrin B, has a unique tubulin-based mechanism of action that is distinct from other anti-microtubule agents including taxanes and vinca alkaloids. Consistent with this unique activity, eribulin has shown clinical efficacy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) that progressed following prior taxane and anthracycline therapy. The evidence presented in this review indicates that eribulin represents a treatment option for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Improved survival outcomes and better tolerability compared with vinorelbine supported the first approval of eribulin in China in 2019; eribulin was approved for women with locally advanced/metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer after treatment failure with at least two chemotherapy regimens, including an anthracycline and a taxane. Eribulin has also shown promising efficacy in patients with HER2-positive advanced breast cancer when used in combination with trastuzumab or pertuzumab, and subgroup analyses from the Phase III clinical trials support the continued evaluation of eribulin in patients with triple-negative disease. The unique non-mitotic effects of eribulin, including vascular remodeling, coupled with its clinical efficacy and safety profile, may permit the broader use of this agent in patients with MBC.

Use of eribulin as an earlier-line chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer

Background: Previous prospective studies have shown that eribulin improves the survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, the optimal timing of its administration to achieve the longest extended survival and the efficacy of using eribulin monotherapy as earlier-line chemotherapy are yet unclear. Methods: We identified all consecutive female patients with MBC who received any chemotherapeutic intervention for metastatic disease at our institution between July 2012 and December 2017, excluding patients with HER2-positive disease. Those who received eribulin monotherapy for MBC were classified under the eribulin cohort, whereas those who never received eribulin were included in the non-eribulin (Non-E) cohort. Among the patients in the eribulin cohort, those who received eribulin as the first- or second-line chemotherapy for MBC were further classified under the earlier-line eribulin (EE), and otherwise classified under the later-line eribulin (LE) cohorts. The survival of patients was assessed using the log-rank test. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the independent efficacy and timing of eribulin monotherapy. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) estimate was utilized to compare the EE and LE cohorts. Results: Of the 507 patients who were initially screened, 226 were included after an intensive chart review: 93, 49, and 84 patients were included in the Non-E, EE, and LE cohorts, respectively. The eribulin cohort showed significantly longer overall survival than the Non-E cohort (30.3 vs. 22.2 months, p = 0.0217). No significant difference was observed in the progression-free survival of the EE and LE cohorts (3.4 vs. 4.4 months, p = 0.1337) after adjusting for clinically relevant factors using IPTW estimates. LE cohort showed good overall survival (OS) compared with patient group of Non-E and EE by log-rank testing (p = 0.0398), although multivariate analysis did not demonstrate eribulin administration timing as an independent prognostic factor of OS. OS was defined from the initiation of first-line chemotherapy date. Conclusions: Our data provided additional insights regarding the use of eribulin monotherapy as earlier-line chemotherapy. However, the optimal timing of eribulin monotherapy for MBC was not determined in the current study.