1
|
Celik A, Berg T, Gibson M, Jensen MB, Kümler I, Eßer-Naumann S, Jakobsen EH, Knoop A, Nielsen D. Capecitabine monotherapy as first-line treatment in advanced HER2-normal breast cancer - a nationwide, retrospective study. Acta Oncol 2024; 63:494-502. [PMID: 38912829 PMCID: PMC11332473 DOI: 10.2340/1651-226x.2024.38886] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/11/2024] [Accepted: 04/18/2024] [Indexed: 06/25/2024]
Abstract
Background and purpose: Capecitabine can be used as first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer. However, real-world data on efficacy of capecitabine in this setting is sparse. The purpose of the study is to evaluate outcomes of patients with Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor (HER2)-normal advanced breast cancer treated with capecitabine monotherapy as first-line treatment. MATERIAL AND METHODS The study utilized the Danish Breast Cancer Group (DBCG) database and was conducted retrospectively across all Danish oncology departments. Inclusion criteria were female patients, with HER2-normal advanced breast cancer treated with capecitabine monotherapy as the first-line treatment from 2010 to 2020. The primary endpoints were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). RESULTS A total of 494 patients were included. Median OS was 16.4 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 14.5-18.0), and median PFS was 6.0 months (95% CI: 5.3-6.7). Patients with estrogen receptor (ER)-positive disease had significantly longer OS (median: 22.8 vs. 10.5 months, p < 0.001) and PFS (median: 7.4 vs. 4.9 months, p = 0.003), when compared to ER-negative patients. Stratifying by age, patients under 45 years displayed a median PFS of 4.1 months, while those aged 45-70 years and over 70 years had median PFS of 5.7 and 7.2 months, respectively (p = 0.01). INTERPRETATION In this nationwide study, the efficacy of capecitabine as a first-line treatment for HER2-normal advanced breast cancer is consistent with other, mainly retrospective, studies. However, when assessed against contemporary and newer treatments, its effectiveness appears inferior to alternative chemotherapies or targeted therapies.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Alan Celik
- Danish Breast Cancer Group, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark.
| | - Tobias Berg
- Danish Breast Cancer Group, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark; Department of Clinical Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Magnus Gibson
- Danish Breast Cancer Group, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Maj-Britt Jensen
- Danish Breast Cancer Group, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Iben Kümler
- Department of Oncology, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark
| | | | - Erik H Jakobsen
- Hospital of Southern Jutland, Department of Oncology, Sonderborg, Denmark
| | - Ann Knoop
- Department of Clinical Oncology, Rigshospitalet, Copenhagen University Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark
| | - Dorte Nielsen
- Department of Oncology, Herlev Hospital, Copenhagen University Hospital, Herlev, Denmark; Department of Clinical Medicine, University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
2
|
Knudsen ADM, Modvig MW, Vogsen M, Kodahl AR. Effect of capecitabine as monotherapy for HER2 normal metastatic breast cancer. Med Oncol 2024; 41:99. [PMID: 38538985 PMCID: PMC10972993 DOI: 10.1007/s12032-024-02356-y] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 01/13/2024] [Accepted: 03/14/2024] [Indexed: 05/31/2024]
Abstract
This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy of capecitabine monotherapy for patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) normal metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS), and secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and PFS according to treatment line and estrogen receptor (ER) status. Patients who received capecitabine as monotherapy for HER2 normal MBC from 2010 to 2020 were included in this retrospective study. ER status, treatment line, number of treatments, and dates of progression and death were registered. PFS was defined from capecitabine initiation to progression or any cause of death, and OS until any cause of death. Among 162 patients receiving capecitabine, approx. 70% had ER-positive disease. They received a median of six cycles of capecitabine (range 2-45). The median PFS was 4.3 months, with no significant difference between treatment lines. When analyzing PFS according to ER status, a statistically significant difference was observed between those with ER-positive and ER-negative disease, with a median PFS of 5,3 months versus 2,5 months, respectively (p = 0.006). A similar trend was seen for overall survival, with a median OS of 14 months for all patients and 17.8 months versus 7.6 months for patients with ER-positive and ER-negative disease, respectively (p ≤ 0.0001). Patients with HER2 normal MBC receiving monotherapy capecitabine had a median PFS of 4.3 months, and a median OS of 14 months. PFS was consistent regardless of treatment line but differed significantly according to ER status.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Anne-Dorthe Mosgaard Knudsen
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Mikala Wej Modvig
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark.
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark.
| | - Marianne Vogsen
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| | - Annette Raskov Kodahl
- Department of Oncology, Odense University Hospital, Odense, Denmark
- Department of Clinical Research, University of Southern Denmark, Odense, Denmark
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Van Baelen K, Geukens T, Maetens M, Tjan-Heijnen V, Lord CJ, Linn S, Bidard FC, Richard F, Yang WW, Steele RE, Pettitt SJ, Van Ongeval C, De Schepper M, Isnaldi E, Nevelsteen I, Smeets A, Punie K, Voorwerk L, Wildiers H, Floris G, Vincent-Salomon A, Derksen PWB, Neven P, Senkus E, Sawyer E, Kok M, Desmedt C. Current and future diagnostic and treatment strategies for patients with invasive lobular breast cancer. Ann Oncol 2022; 33:769-785. [PMID: 35605746 DOI: 10.1016/j.annonc.2022.05.006] [Citation(s) in RCA: 57] [Impact Index Per Article: 19.0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Grants] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 03/08/2022] [Revised: 05/06/2022] [Accepted: 05/17/2022] [Indexed: 02/07/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Invasive lobular breast cancer (ILC) is the second most common type of breast cancer after invasive breast cancer of no special type (NST), representing up to 15% of all breast cancers. DESIGN Latest data on ILC are presented, focusing on diagnosis, molecular make-up according to the European Society for Medical Oncology Scale for Clinical Actionability of molecular Targets (ESCAT) guidelines, treatment in the early and metastatic setting and ILC-focused clinical trials. RESULTS At the imaging level, magnetic resonance imaging-based and novel positron emission tomography/computed tomography-based techniques can overcome the limitations of currently used imaging techniques for diagnosing ILC. At the pathology level, E-cadherin immunohistochemistry could help improving inter-pathologist agreement. The majority of patients with ILC do not seem to benefit as much from (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy as patients with NST, although chemotherapy might be required in a subset of high-risk patients. No differences in treatment efficacy are seen for anti-human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) therapies in the adjuvant setting and cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 inhibitors in the metastatic setting. The clinical utility of the commercially available prognostic gene expression-based tests is unclear for patients with ILC. Several ESCAT alterations differ in frequency between ILC and NST. Germline BRCA1 and PALB2 alterations are less frequent in patients with ILC, while germline CDH1 (gene coding for E-cadherin) alterations are more frequent in patients with ILC. Somatic HER2 mutations are more frequent in ILC, especially in metastases (15% ILC versus 5% NST). A high tumour mutational burden, relevant for immune checkpoint inhibition, is more frequent in ILC metastases (16%) than in NST metastases (5%). Tumours with somatic inactivating CDH1 mutations may be vulnerable for treatment with ROS1 inhibitors, a concept currently investigated in early and metastatic ILC. CONCLUSION ILC is a unique malignancy based on its pathological and biological features leading to differences in diagnosis as well as in treatment response, resistance and targets as compared to NST.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- K Van Baelen
- Laboratory for Translational Breast Cancer Research (LTBCR), Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Departments of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - T Geukens
- Laboratory for Translational Breast Cancer Research (LTBCR), Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; General Medical Oncology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - M Maetens
- Laboratory for Translational Breast Cancer Research (LTBCR), Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - V Tjan-Heijnen
- Medical Oncology Department, Maastricht University Medical Center (MUMC), School of GROW, Maastricht, The Netherlands
| | - C J Lord
- The CRUK Gene Function Laboratory and Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - S Linn
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands; Departments of Medical Oncology, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Molecular Pathology, Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - F-C Bidard
- Department of Medical Oncology, Institut Curie, UVSQ/Paris-Saclav University, Paris, France
| | - F Richard
- Laboratory for Translational Breast Cancer Research (LTBCR), Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - W W Yang
- The CRUK Gene Function Laboratory and Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - R E Steele
- The CRUK Gene Function Laboratory and Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - S J Pettitt
- The CRUK Gene Function Laboratory and Breast Cancer Now Toby Robins Research Centre, The Institute of Cancer Research, London, UK
| | - C Van Ongeval
- Departments of Radiology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - M De Schepper
- Laboratory for Translational Breast Cancer Research (LTBCR), Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium; Pathology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - E Isnaldi
- Laboratory for Translational Breast Cancer Research (LTBCR), Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - A Smeets
- Surgical Oncology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - K Punie
- General Medical Oncology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - L Voorwerk
- Departments of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Tumour Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - H Wildiers
- General Medical Oncology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - G Floris
- Pathology, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | | | - P W B Derksen
- Department of Pathology, University Medical Center Utrecht, Utrecht, The Netherlands
| | - P Neven
- Departments of Gynaecology and Obstetrics, UZ Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
| | - E Senkus
- Department of Oncology and Radiotherapy, Medical University of Gdańsk, Gdańsk, Poland
| | - E Sawyer
- School of Cancer and Pharmaceutical Sciences, Faculty of Life Sciences and Medicine, Guy's Cancer Centre, King's College London, London, UK
| | - M Kok
- Departments of Medical Oncology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands; Tumour Biology and Immunology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands
| | - C Desmedt
- Laboratory for Translational Breast Cancer Research (LTBCR), Department of Oncology, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium.
| |
Collapse
|