An open-label, multicenter study of outpatient capecitabine monotherapy in 631 patients with pretreated advanced breast cancer

Cost-Effectiveness of Pharmacologic Treatment Options for Women With Endocrine-Refractory or Triple-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer

PURPOSE

Treatments for endocrine-refractory or triple-negative metastatic breast cancer (mBC) are modestly effective at prolonging life and improving quality of life but can be extremely expensive. Given these tradeoffs in quality of life and cost, the optimal choice of treatment sequencing is unclear. Cost-effectiveness analysis can explicitly quantify such tradeoffs, enabling more informed decision making. Our objective was to estimate the societal cost-effectiveness of different therapeutic alternatives in the first- to third-line sequences of single-agent chemotherapy regimens among patients with endocrine-refractory or triple-negative mBC.

METHODS

Using three dynamic microsimulation models of 10,000 patients each, three cohorts were simulated, based upon prior chemotherapy exposure: (1) unexposed to either taxane or anthracycline, (2) taxane- and anthracycline-exposed, and (3) taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive. We focused on the following single-agent chemotherapy regimens as reasonable and commonly used options in the first three lines of therapy for each cohort, based upon feedback from oncologists treating endocrine-refractory or triple-negative mBC: (1) for taxane- and anthracycline-unexposed patients, paclitaxel, capecitabine (CAPE), or pegylated liposomal doxorubicin; (2) for taxane- and anthracycline-exposed patients, Eribulin, CAPE, or carboplatin; and (3) for taxane-exposed/anthracycline-naive patients, pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, CAPE, or Eribulin.

RESULTS

In each cohort, accumulated quality-adjusted life-years were similar between regimens, but total societal costs varied considerably. Sequences beginning first-line treatment with paclitaxel, carboplatin, and CAPE, respectively, for cohorts 1, 2, and 3, had lower costs and similar or slightly better outcomes compared with alternative options.

CONCLUSION

In this setting where multiple single-agent chemotherapy options are recommended by clinical guidelines and share similar survival and adverse event trajectories, treatment sequencing approaches that minimize costs early may improve the value of care.

Suggested Modifications to the Management of Patients With Breast Cancer During the COVID-19 Pandemic: Web-Based Survey Study

BACKGROUND

Management of patients with cancer in the current era of the COVID-19 pandemic poses a significant challenge to health care systems. Breast cancer is the most common cancer internationally. Breast cancer is a disease that involves surgery, chemotherapy, hormonal therapy, targeted therapy, radiotherapy, and, more recently, immunotherapy in its management plan. The immune system requires months to recover from these medications, and this condition is even worse in patients with metastatic breast cancer who need ongoing treatment with these drugs. Some of these drugs, such as inhibitors of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6, can cause rare but life-threating lung inflammation. Patients with breast cancer who have metastatic disease to the lungs can experience deterioration of disease symptoms with COVID-19 infection. Oncologists treating patients with breast cancer are facing a difficult situation regarding treatment choice. The impact that COVID-19 has had on breast cancer care is unknown, including how to provide the best care possible without compromising patient and community safety.

OBJECTIVE

The aim of this study was to explore the views of oncologists regarding the management of patients with breast cancer during the COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A web-based SurveyMonkey questionnaire was submitted to licensed oncologists involved in breast cancer management in Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and United Arab Emirates. The survey focused on characteristics of the participants, infection risk among patients with cancer, and possible treatment modifications related to different types of breast cancer.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 82 participants. For early hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer, 61 of the 82 participants (74%) supported using neoadjuvant hormonal therapy in selected patients, and 58% (48/82) preferred giving 6 over 8 cycles of adjuvant chemotherapy when indicated. Only 43% (35/82) preferred inhibitors of cyclin-dependent kinases 4 and 6 with hormonal therapy as the first-line treatment in all patients with metastatic HR-positive disease. A total of 55 of the 82 participants (67%) supported using adjuvant trastuzumab for 6 instead of 12 months in selected patients with HER2-positive breast cancer. For metastatic HER2-positive, HR-positive breast cancer, 80% of participants (66/82) supported the use of hormonal therapy with dual anti-HER2 blockade in selected patients. The preferred choice of first-line treatment in metastatic triple negative patients with BRCA mutation and programmed cell death 1 ligand 1 (PD-L1) <1% was poly(adenosine diphosphate-ribose) polymerase inhibitor according to 41% (34/82) of the participants, and atezolizumab with nab-paclitaxel was preferred for PD-L1 >1% according to 71% (58/82) of the participants.

CONCLUSIONS

Several modifications in breast cancer management were supported by the survey participants. These modifications need to be discussed on a local basis, taking into account the local infrastructure and available resources.

Update on systemic treatment in early triple negative breast cancer

Triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) is a heterogeneous disease representing about 15% of all breast cancers. TNBC are usually high-grade histological tumors, and are generally more aggressive and difficult to treat due to the lack of targeted therapies available, and chemotherapy remains the standard treatment. There is a close relationship between pathological complete response after chemotherapy treatment and higher rates of disease-free survival and overall survival. In this review of systemic treatment in early triple negative breast cancer, our purpose is to analyze and compare different therapies, as well as to highlight the novelties of treatment in this breast cancer subtype.

Secondary analyses of the randomized phase III Stop&Go study: efficacy of second-line intermittent versus continuous chemotherapy in HER2-negative advanced breast cancer

Background: Previously, we showed that reintroduction of the same (first-line) chemotherapy at progression could only partially make up for the loss in efficacy as compared to continuously delivered first-line chemotherapy. Here, we report the probability of starting second-line study chemotherapy in the Stop&Go trial, and the progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) of patients who received both the first- and second-line treatment in an intermittent versus continuous schedule.Methods: First-line chemotherapy comprised paclitaxel plus bevacizumab, second-line capecitabine or non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin, given per treatment line as two times four cycles (intermittent) or as eight consecutive cycles (continuous).Results: Of the 420 patients who started first-line treatment within the Stop&Go trial (210:210), a total of 270 patients continued on second-line study treatment (64% of all), which consisted of capecitabine in 201 patients and of non-pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in 69 patients, evenly distributed between the treatment arms. Median PFS was 3.7 versus 5.0 months (HR 1.07; 95% CI: 0.82-1.38) and median OS 10.9 versus 12.4 months (HR 1.27; 95% CI: 0.98-1.66) for intermittent versus continuous second-line chemotherapy. Second-line PFS was positively influenced by prior hormonal therapy for metastatic disease and longer first-line PFS duration, while triple-negative tumor status had a negative influence. Patients with a shorter time to progression (TTP) in first-line (≤10 months) had a higher probability of starting second-line treatment if they received intermittent compared to continuous chemotherapy (OR 1.97; 95% CI: 1.02-3.80).Conclusion: We recommend continuous scheduling of both the first- and second-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer.

Controversial issues in the neoadjuvant treatment of triple-negative breast cancer

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), as a collective group of heterogenous tumours, displays the highest rate of distant recurrence and lowest survival from metastatic disease across breast cancer subtypes. However, a subset of TNBC display impressive primary tumour response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy, translating to reduction in future relapse and increased overall survival. Maximizing early treatment response is crucial to improving the outlook in this subtype. Numerous systemic therapy strategies are being assessed in the neoadjuvant setting and the current paradigm of generic chemotherapy components in regimens for high-risk breast cancers, regardless of biological subtype, is changing. Therapeutic approaches with evidence of benefit include platinum drugs, polyadenosine diphosphate ribose polymerase (PARP) inhibitors, immunotherapy and second adjuvant therapy for those not achieving pathological complete response. Importantly, molecular testing can identify subgroups within TNBC, such as deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) homologous recombination repair deficiency, lymphocyte-predominant tumours, and TNBC type 4 molecular subtypes. Clinical trials that address the interaction between these biomarkers and treatment approaches are a priority, to identify subgroups benefiting from additional therapy.

Everolimus plus exemestane versus bevacizumab-based chemotherapy for second-line treatment of hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer in Greece: An economic evaluation study

Background

The objective of our study was to conduct a cost-effectiveness (CE) study of combined everolimus (EVE) and exemestane (EXE) versus the common clinical practice in Greece for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced breast cancer (BC) progressing on nonsteroidal aromatase inhibitors (NSAI). The combinations of bevacizumab (BEV) plus paclitaxel (PACL) and BEV plus capecitabine (CAPE) were selected as comparators.

Method

A Markov model, consisting of three health states, was used to describe disease progression and evaluate the CE of the comparators from a third-party payer perspective over a lifetime horizon. Efficacy and safety data as well as utility values considered in the model were extracted from the relevant randomized Phase III clinical trials and other published studies. Direct medical costs referring to the year 2014 were incorporated in the model. A probabilistic sensitivity analysis was conducted to account for uncertainty and variation in the parameters of the model. Primary outcomes were patient survival (life-years), quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), total direct costs and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICER).

Results

The discounted quality-adjusted survival of patients treated with EVE plus EXE was greater by 0.035 and 0.004 QALYs, compared to BEV plus PACL and BEV plus CAPE, respectively. EVE plus EXE was the least costly treatment in terms of drug acquisition, administration, and concomitant medications. The total lifetime cost per patient was estimated at €55,022, €67,980, and €62,822 for EVE plus EXE, BEV plus PACL, and BEV plus CAPE, respectively. The probabilistic analysis confirmed the deterministic results.

Conclusion

Our results suggest that EVE plus EXE may be a dominant alternative relative to BEV plus PACL and BEV plus CAPE for the treatment of HR+/HER2- advanced BC patients failing initial therapy with NSAIs.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12913-015-0971-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A retrospective study evaluating a fixed low dose capecitabine monotherapy in women with HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer

To determine if a low fixed dosing strategy of capecitabine would produce comparable clinical activity with less adverse toxicities compared to published data with higher doses in the setting of metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We retrospectively analyzed patients treated with a low fixed dose of capecitabine (CAPE-L) at 1,000 mg twice daily for 14 days every 21 days. Outcomes included clinical benefit rate (CBR), overall response rates (ORR), time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). A historical comparison group of mBC patients treated on 12 prior trials at the package-insert dose of capecitabine (n = 1,949) was utilized. Eighty-six patients were analyzed in our cohort. Positive hormone receptor status (79.1 vs. 50.6 %), and capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy (44.2 vs. 16.5 %) were more frequent in our cohort relative to the historical comparison. The median starting dose in our cohort was 633.5 mg/m(2). The CBR was similar between the CAPE-L and the standard dose cohorts (55.8 vs. 49.5 %), as was ORR (24.3 vs. 24 %), and median TTP (7 mo, 95 % CI 5.5-8.5 vs. 5.1 mo, 95 % CI 4.5-5.7). Median OS was longer in our cohort (24 mo, 95 % CI 16.8-31.2) than the historic standard dose cohort (12.1 mo, 95 % CI 9.6-14.4), a difference that was likely explained by the higher proportion of patients in the CAPE-L cohort who received capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy and who had hormone receptor positive disease. As expected, adverse events were less frequent with CAPE-L. We found that CAPE-L, which translates into a dose of 600-650 mg/m(2), appeared to have good clinical efficacy and acceptable toxicity.

Phase II study of irinotecan plus capecitabine in anthracycline- and taxane- pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer

To evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of combined treatment with irinotecan (I) and capecitabine (X), we conducted a phase II study of the IX combination in anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients received 80 mg/m(2) I on days 1 and 8 and 1,000 mg/m(2) X twice daily on days 1-14 of 21-day cycles until disease progression. The primary endpoint was the objective response rate (ORR), and the secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and safety. Thirty-six patients were enrolled between September 2006 and April 2008. The median follow-up was 47.6 months. The ORR was 58.3 % (95 % CI, 42.2-72.9), with 3 complete responses and 18 partial responses. The median PFS was 7.6 months (95 % CI, 5.0-10.2), and the median OS was 20.0 months (95 % CI, 11.6-28.4). Neutropenia was the most common adverse event (grade 3, 30.6 %; grade 4, 27.8 %) with febrile neutropenia in 2 patients (5.6 %). Three patients (8.3 %) had grade 3 diarrhea, 3 patients (8.3 %) had grade 3 asthenia, and 1 patient (2.8 %) had grade 3 hand-foot syndrome. The IX combination was effective and tolerable for anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated patients with MBC. A phase III trial of this combination is ongoing.

Individually tailored treatment with epirubicin and paclitaxel with or without capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer: a randomized multicenter trial

Anthracyclines and taxanes are active cytotoxic drugs in the treatment of early metastatic breast cancer. It is yet unclear whether addition of capecitabine to the combination of these drugs improves the treatment outcome. Patients with advanced breast cancer were randomized to first-line chemotherapy with a combination of epirubicin (Farmorubicin(®)) and paclitaxel (Taxol(®)) alone (ET) or in combination with capecitabine (Xeloda(®), TEX). Starting doses for ET were epirubicin 75 mg/m(2) plus paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2), and for TEX epirubicin 75 mg/m(2), paclitaxel 155 mg/m(2), and capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) BID for 14 days. Subsequently, doses were tailored related to side effects. Primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were overall survival (OS), time to treatment failure (TTF), objective response (OR), safety and quality of life (QoL). 287 patients were randomized, 143 to ET and 144 to TEX. Median PFS was 10.8 months for patients treated with ET, and 12.4 months for those treated with TEX (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.65-1.07, P = 0.16); median OS was 26.0 months for women in the ET versus 29.7 months in the TEX arm (HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.63-1.11, P = 0.22). OR was achieved in 44.8% (ET) and 54.2% (TEX), respectively (χ(2) 3.66, P = 0.16). TTF was significantly longer for patients treated with TEX, 6.0 months, versus 5.2 months following ET (HR 0.73, 95% CI 0.58-0.93, P = 0.009). Severe hematological side effects related to epirubicin and paclitaxel were evenly distributed between the treatment arms, mucositis, diarrhea, and Hand-Foot syndrome were significantly more frequent in the TEX arm. Toxicity-adjusted treatment with ET and TEX showed similar efficacy in terms of PFS, OS, and OR. In this trial with limited power, the addition of capecitabine to epirubicin and paclitaxel as first-line treatment did not translate into clinically relevant improvement of the outcome.

A phase I study of sunitinib plus capecitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors

PURPOSE

This open-label, phase I, dose-escalation study assessed the maximum-tolerated dose (MTD), safety, pharmacokinetics, and antitumor activity of sunitinib in combination with capecitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Sunitinib (25, 37.5, or 50 mg) was administered orally once daily on three dosing schedules: 4 weeks on treatment, 2 weeks off treatment (Schedule 4/2); 2 weeks on treatment, 1 week off treatment (Schedule 2/1); and continuous daily dosing (CDD schedule). Capecitabine (825, 1,000, or 1,250 mg/m(2)) was administered orally twice daily on days 1 to 14 every 3 weeks for all patients. Sunitinib and capecitabine doses were escalated in serial patient cohorts.

RESULTS

Seventy-three patients were treated. Grade 3 adverse events included abdominal pain, mucosal inflammation, fatigue, neutropenia, and hand-foot syndrome. The MTD for Schedule 4/2 and the CDD schedule was sunitinib 37.5 mg/d plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice per day; the MTD for Schedule 2/1 was sunitinib 50 mg/d plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice per day. There were no clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. Nine partial responses were confirmed in patients with pancreatic cancer (n = 3) and breast, thyroid, neuroendocrine, bladder, and colorectal cancer, and cholangiocarcinoma (each n = 1).

CONCLUSION

The combination of sunitinib and capecitabine resulted in an acceptable safety profile in patients with advanced solid tumors. Further evaluation of sunitinib in combination with capecitabine may be undertaken using the MTD for any of the three treatment schedules.

Management of metastatic breast cancer: monotherapy options for patients resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes

Resistance to chemotherapeutic agents is a significant obstacle to the effective treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Anthracycline- and taxane-based regimens are active as first-line treatment for MBC; however, MBC often progresses because of primary or acquired resistance to anthracyclines and taxanes. There are few options for the treatment of patients with anthracycline- and taxane-resistant or taxane-refractory MBC. This article reviews several single agents that have demonstrated activity as treatment for patients with MBC who progress during, or rapidly following, treatment with anthracyclines and taxanes. Results from clinical trials evaluating agents such as ixabepilone, albumin-bound paclitaxel, capecitabine, vinorelbine, pemetrexed, and irinotecan are presented. Single-agent capecitabine is approved for the treatment of patients after failure of anthracyclines and taxanes. Ixabepilone has demonstrated efficacy in patients with MBC resistant to multiple chemotherapeutic agents and is the only agent approved by the Food and Drug Administration as monotherapy for anthracycline-, taxane-, and capecitabine-resistant MBC. Improved treatment strategies and further evaluation of newer agents may reduce the current burden of treatment-resistant or treatment-refractory MBC.

An open-label expanded access study of lapatinib and capecitabine in patients with HER2-overexpressing locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

The Lapatinib Expanded Access Program (LEAP) was designed to provide access to lapatinib plus capecitabine for HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients who previously received an anthracycline, a taxane, and a trastuzumab and had no other treatment options.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

LEAP opened globally and enrollment continued until lapatinib received regulatory approval in each participating country. Patients were assessed for progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS) and monitored for serious adverse events (SAEs).

RESULTS

As of 30 September 2008, 4283 patients from 45 countries enrolled in LEAP. The median treatment duration was 24.7 weeks. The most common drug-related SAEs were diarrhea (9.7%), vomiting (4.3%), and nausea (2.4%) and were mainly grade 3 or higher. The incidences of special interest SAEs were decreased left ventricle ejection fraction (0.5%), interstitial lung disease/pneumonitis (0.2%), and serious hepatobiliary events (0.4%). This safety profile is consistent with the overall lapatinib program. The median PFS and OS were 21.1 [95% confidence interval (CI) = 20.1-22.3] and 39.6 (95% CI = 37.7-40.7) weeks, respectively (n = 4006). Subgroup analysis showed longer PFS and OS in patients who had not received prior capecitabine.

CONCLUSIONS

These results demonstrate the safety and efficacy of lapatinib in a broader patient population compared with a clinical trial.

First-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer

The selection of first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is complex because of the myriad of treatment options available and the inherent biologic heterogeneity of the disease. The potential treatment options are greatly influenced by estrogen and progesterone receptor and HER2 status of the tumor, and biopsy with reassessment of these markers at the time of disease recurrence is strongly recommended. Metastatic breast cancer is generally an incurable disease, with survival that could range from months to several years. Important but modest improvements in overall survival (OS) have been observed for women with MBC over the past few decades, in part because of improvements in systemic therapy. For women with endocrine-responsive disease, hormonal therapy is the appropriate initial treatment choice at the time of disease recurrence with rare exception. Initiation of systemic chemotherapy is appropriate for women with disease that is either hormone receptor negative, endocrine therapy refractory, or rapidly progressive with visceral involvement. The addition of trastuzumab to chemotherapy for women with HER2-positive breast cancer represents a clear standard of care. For HER2-negative MBC, sequential single-agent chemotherapy is preferred over combination therapy as a result of the more favorable toxicity profile and absence of a clinically significant improvement in survival with combination treatment. Many single-agent chemotherapeutic agents have activity in MBC, with most data supporting an anthracycline- or taxane-based approach. Bevacizumab in combination with chemotherapy prolongs progression-free survival in women with MBC, though its position in the first-line treatment of MBC relative to standard chemotherapy remains unclear at this time because of lack of OS benefit.

Pharmacology and therapeutic efficacy of capecitabine: focus on breast and colorectal cancer

Capecitabine (N -pentyloxycarbonyl-5-deoxy-5-fluorocytidine), an oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil, has provided compelling efficacy data for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer and stage III or IV colorectal cancer, both as monotherapy and in combination regimens. The preferential conversion of capecitabine to 5-fluorouracil in neoplastic tissues renders this fluoropyrimidine particularly appealing for clinical use. The enzyme thymidine phosphorylase, which mediates the final step of the capecitabine activation pathway, is expressed in higher concentration in neoplastic than in healthy tissues. This makes capecitabine more tumor specific than other chemotherapeutic agents. Accordingly, capecitabine is generally well tolerated. In particular, the incidence of myelosuppression and alopecia is low, and the most common side effects, hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea, are usually manageable. Given its good toxicity profile, capecitabine was assessed in combination with several chemotherapeutic or biologic agents. In addition, the observation that thymidine phosphorylase is upregulated after treatment with other anticancer drugs, namely taxanes, provided a rationale for the prominent antitumor activity recently observed for the combination of capecitabine with these agents. This review provides an evidence-based update of clinical trials investigating the role of capecitabine in the treatment of breast and colorectal cancer, with special emphasis on pharmacological and safety issues that form the basis of currently used schedules.