Metronomic chemotherapy combined with endocrine therapy: are we challenging some dogmas?

Chemotherapy Combined With Endocrine Therapy: Old Wine in a New Bottle?

Both chemotherapy (CT) and endocrine therapy (ET) play important roles in the systemic treatment of breast cancer (BC). However, previous studies have shown an antagonistic effect when CT and ET are administered simultaneously. Therefore, sequential administration is more effective than combined administration. The current guidelines and consensus recommend a sequential schedule of CT and ET for patients with hormone receptor-positive (HR+) BC. However, with the continuous introduction of new endocrine drugs, the question of whether the simultaneous administration of CT and ET is superior to sequential therapy has surfaced again as a hot topic of clinical concern. Recent studies have shown that the combination of certain chemotherapeutic agents with endocrine drugs has a synergistic effect. This review aims to summarize the new advances achieved in recent years on the old topic of CT combined with ET in the treatment of BC.

Dose-dependent bidirectional pharmacological effects of vinorelbine-based metronomic combination chemotherapy on tumor growth and metastasis and mechanisms in melanoma mouse model

BACKGROUND

There is evidence that the empirical setting of doses and schedules of antineoplastic agents in metronomic chemotherapy (MC) might lead to undesirable outcomes, such as promoting tumor growth or metastasis at certain low doses. However, details about the dose effect of antineoplastic agents in MC have not been fully known yet.

OBJECTIVES

Vinorelbine combined with cisplatin or fluorouracil (VNR/CDDP or VNR/FU) was selected to investigate its effects on tumor growth or metastasis as well as mechanisms.

METHODS

Experimental techniques, including immunohistochemistry, western blot, immunofluorescence, and flow cytometry, were used to explore the mechanisms, along with cell proliferation, apoptosis, migration, and invasion.

RESULTS

The results showed that VNR/CDDP or VNR/FU promoted tumor growth and metastasis at low doses and inhibited them at high ones. Except that expressions of apoptotic proteins were elevated at both low and high doses, low-dose treatments enhanced angiogenesis and promoted the mobilization and recruitment of myeloid-derived suppressor cells (MDSCs), while high-dose treatments reversed these effects. Additionally, low concentrations of VNR/CDDP or VNR/FU stimulated tumor cell functions such as anti-apoptosis, migration, and invasion, but high concentrations only suppressed cell proliferation and increased apoptosis.

CONCLUSION

This study elucidated a bidirectional action mode regulated by multiple mechanisms at different doses in MC and also highlighted the risks of low-dose metronomic administration of antineoplastic agents in the clinic. More preclinical and clinical studies focusing on the dose-effect of metronomic regimens are urgently needed because an effective therapeutic regimen should be an optimal setting of drugs, doses, schedules, or combinations.

Capecitabine Plus Aromatase Inhibitor as First Line Therapy for Hormone Receptor Positive, HER2 Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer

(1) Background: recent evidence suggests that long low-dose capecitabine regimens have a synergistic effect with endocrine therapy as aromatase inhibitors (AIs), and might increase overall survival for hormone-receptor-positive, HER2-negative, metastatic breast cancer compared to both treatments. We performed a retrospective study to confirm the efficacy and expand the safety data for capecitabine plus AI (a combination henceforth named XELIA) for this indication. (2) We conducted a single-center retrospective cohort study of 163 hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer patients who received either the XELIA regimen, capecitabine, or an aromatase inhibitor (AI) as single agents in first-line treatment. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival, and the secondary endpoints were overall survival, best objective response, and toxicity incidence. (3) Results: the median progression-free survival for patients receiving XELIA, AI, and capecitabine was 29.37 months (20.91 to 37.84; 95% CI), 20.04 months (7.29 to 32.80; 95% CI) and 10.48 (8.69 to 12.28; 95% CI), respectively. The overall response rate was higher in the XELIA group (29.5%) than in the AI (14.3%) and capecitabine (9.1%) groups. However, the differences in overall survival were not statistically significant. Apart from hand-foot syndrome, there were no statistically significant differences in adverse events between the groups. (4) Conclusions: this retrospective study suggests that progression-free survival and overall response rates improved with the XELIA regimen compared to use of aromatase inhibitors and capecitabine alone. Combined use demonstrated an adequate safety profile and might represent an advantageous treatment in places where CDK 4/6 is not available. Larger studies and randomized clinical trials are required to confirm the effects shown in our study.