Vinorelbine plus Capecitabine (Vinocap): a retrospective analysis in heavily pretreated HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer patients

PURPOSE

Metastatic breast cancer is regarded as an incurable entity. In heavily pretreated patients with increasingly limited options for palliative management, ensuring proper quality of life continues is to be an elusive issue. With this in mind, the authors evaluated the efficacy and safety of the Vinorelbine/Capecitabine doublet (VINOCAP).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The investigators retrospectively analyzed a cohort of 67 women with HER2 negative MBC treated at a large breast cancer practice and a local cancer center with Vinorelbine 22.5 mg/m2 IV on days 1 and 8 combined with Capecitabine 1 g PO BID for 14 consecutive days of 21 day cycles. Patients had been treated with an average of 4 prior lines of chemotherapy. Patient characteristics and outcomes were evaluated.

RESULTS

A total of 67 patients received VINOCAP, and an additional 2 underwent repeat exposure yielding a cohort of 69. Clinical benefit rate, defined as complete response (CR), partial response (PR) or stable disease ≥ 6 months (SD), was 55.07%. Complete response was seen in 4.34%, PR in 18.8% and SD ≥ 6 months in 31.9%. Median progression-free survival was 6.2 months and overall survival 35.47 months after VINOCAP exposure. The most common grade 3-4 toxicity was neutropenia in 10% of cases. Dose had to be reduced in 18% of cases due to toxicity of any type. The regimen was well tolerated, and serious side effects were uncommon.

CONCLUSION

Vinorelbine/Capecitabine appears to be an active and well-tolerated regimen in women with MBC. In particular, encouraging was the efficacy of VINOCAP as fourth or greater line of chemotherapy.

Comparison of the Therapeutic Efficacy of the Early and the Delayed Use of Vinorelbine-Based Regimens for Patients with Advanced Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of vinorelbine-based regimens as first-, second- and more-line therapies in advanced breast cancer (ABC) and to analyze the best timing of vinorelbine treatment.

METHODS

A total of 71 ABC patients were retrospectively reviewed. Of these, 35 patients were treated with vinorelbine-based regimens as first-line chemotherapy, and 36 patients were treated with vinorelbine-based regimens as second-line or more-line therapy. The primary end point of the study was progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

No difference was found in baseline characteristics between the two groups (p > 0.1 for all comparisons). There was a significant difference in the objective response rate (ORR; p = 0.006) and clinical benefit rate (CBR; p = 0.013) between the first-line group and the second- or more-line groups. In the vinorelbine first-line group, the ORR was 68.6% (24 patients), and in the second-line or more-line groups the ORR was 36.1% (13 patients). A significant difference in PFS between the first-line group and the second-line or more-line groups was also observed (p = 0.030). The median PFS in the overall population was 6.3 ± 1.32 months (95% CI 3.69-8.90). The median PFS was 11.1 ± 3.76 months (95% CI 3.73-18.47) in the first-line group compared with 5.2 ± 1.35 months (95% CI 2.54-7.85) in the second-line or more-line groups. In patients treated with vinorelbine-trastuzumab combination as the first-line therapy, a complete response was observed in 1 patient (12.5%) and partial response in 5 patients (62.5%), giving an ORR of 75.0%. Progressive disease was observed in 1 patient (12.5%), and stable disease in 1 patient (12.5%), leading to a CBR of 87.5%. The median PFS was 13.8 ± 2.75 months (95% CI 8.42-19.18), and median OS was 37.0 ± 11.6 months (95% CI 14.18-59.82). No significant difference was found in overall survival (OS) between the groups (p = 0.612).

CONCLUSION

For ABC patients, no significant difference in median OS was found between the early use and delayed use of vinorelbine-based regimens, but the short-term efficacy and PFS of vinorelbine-based regimens were significantly better in the early use group than in the delayed use group.

Vinorelbine With Capecitabine, an Evergreen Doublet for Advanced Breast Cancer: A Systematic Literature Review and Pooled-Analysis of Phase II-III Studies

Metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is treated with cytotoxic drugs or endocrine agents according to the site and extent of the disease, biology, previous treatments, and the patient's condition, comorbidities, and wishes. In MBC, vinorelbine (VRB) and capecitabine (X; VRB + X) are chemotherapy drugs that hold activity as first or later lines of therapy. We conducted a systematic literature review and meta-analysis to quantify the efficacy of the VRB + X combination in HER2-negative (HER2^-) MBC. We searched PubMed, EMBASE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, the Cochrane Library, and CINAHL for phase II/III clinical trials that assessed VRB + X for patients with HER2^- MBC. Pooled estimates of the overall response rate (RR), median progression-free survival (PFS), and overall survival (OS) were computed using random or fixed effects models. Twenty-seven studies were included in the analysis, encompassing a total of 1356 MBC patients. All were phase II (n = 21) or prospective/pilot (n = 5) trials, except for 1 that was a phase III controlled trial. The pooled estimate for the RR in first-line therapy (n = 16 trials) was 52.9% (95% confidence interval [CI], 46.5%-59.2%). For second-line trials, data were available in n = 9 studies and the overall RR was 41% (95% CI, 31.2%-51.6%). The pooled estimates for median PFS and OS in first-line therapy were 7.3 (95% CI, 6.2-8.3) and 22.3 (95% CI, 20-24.5) months, respectively. Vinorelbine + X, with the dose and schedules currently used in clinical practice, appears to be an effective and feasible chemotherapy for MBC, for first- and also for second-line therapy.

Gemcitabine and Capecitabine Combination Chemotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Pretreated with Anthracyclines and/or Taxanes

BACKGROUND

Owing to the need for effective and tolerable new regimens for the treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with anthracyclines and/or taxanes, we aimed to assess the activity and safety of the gemcitabine plus capecitabine combination chemotherapy.

METHODS

Sixty-four patients were enrolled. Treatment consisted of gemcitabine 1,000 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8, plus oral capecitabine at 1,250 mg/m2 twice daily on days 1-14. The primary end point was the overall response rate (ORR). Secondary objectives included the disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), toxicity, and predictive factors.

RESULTS

In the 64 patients, the ORR and DCR was 28.1 and 67.2%. Median OS and PFS were 23.6 and 13.4 months, respectively. Toxicities were mild and curable.

CONCLUSION

The combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine is an effective and tolerable treatment for MBC previously treated with anthracyclines and/or taxanes.

Newer therapies for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a clinical update

Breast cancer is the foremost common malignancy among the female population around the world. Female breast cancer incidence rates have increased since 1980, slowed in 1990, the rate of increase have leveled off since 2001. In spite of the advances in the early detection, treatment, surgery and radiation support, almost 70% of the patients develop metastasis and die of the disease. Around 10% of the patients when diagnosed with breast cancer have metastases. Survival among the breast cancer patients have increased due to the introduction of novel single agent, combination of chemotherapeutic agents and targeted biologic agents, which is breast cancer specific. The staging of tumor-node-metastasis is significant for the prognosis and treatment. Predominantly the combination of chemotherapeutic regimen is given to improve the rate of clinical benefit and the overall survival rate. Novel mono-therapeutic options are being used often in metastatic setting as they will not be able to endure the toxicity of the combination regimen. Usually, endocrine therapy is recommended for hormone-responsive breast cancer due to efficacy and favorable side effect profile but chemotherapy becomes an option when endocrine therapy fails. This review summarizes the newer therapeutic options for early breast cancer and advanced breast cancer that are pretreated heavily on other chemotherapeutic agents. Further it provides monotherapies and other emerging novel combination regime which can be opted for first line or second line setting.

Acceptable but limited efficacy of capecitabine-based doublets in the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: a pilot study

BACKGROUND

This open-label, nonrandomized phase II clinical trial investigated the efficacy of capecitabine-based doublets in the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC).

METHODS

Eligible mTNBC women with measurable diseases were recruited to receive either TX regimen (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) b.i.d. on days 1-14 every 3 weeks) or NX regimen (vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1 and 8 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) b.i.d. on days 1-14 every 3 weeks) for up to 6 cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) and secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and clinical benefit rate (CBR).

RESULTS

Forty-five mTNBC patients, 27 in TX and 18 in NX were recruited. The total ORR was 20.0% and CBR was 40%. After a median follow-up of 28 months, PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.1-6.3 months) and OS was 18.2 months (95% CI, 8.7-27.7 months). The response rate was numerically but not statistically lower in the TX group than in the NX group (27.8 vs. 14.8%, p = 0.449). No difference was found in either PFS (4.9 vs. 5.2 months, p = 0.483) or OS (21.5 vs. 18.3 months, p = 0.964) between the two regimens.

CONCLUSIONS

Although the OS seems to be reasonable, the efficacy of capecitabine-containing TX or NX regimen was limited in terms of response and PFS in mTNBC patients, suggesting capecitabine-based doublet may be acceptable but has limited potency in this subtype.

Vinorelbine and capecitabine in anthracycline- and/or taxane-pretreated metastatic breast cancer: sequential or combinational?

PURPOSE

The difference between combinational and pre-planned sequential therapies using regimens that include non-anthracycline and taxane in the first-line setting remains unclear. The purpose of this study is to explore the interaction between vinorelbine (N) and capecitabine (X) in breast cancer cells and to compare the simultaneous or sequential administration of the two drugs in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) as first-line treatment.

METHODS

First, we explored the effects of vinorelbine on thymidine phosphorylase (TP) and thymidylate synthase (TS) expression in breast cancer cells. Next, we designed a prospective randomized phase II trial of MBC patients comparing the combinational and pre-planned sequential administration of vinorelbine and capecitabine in the first-line metastatic setting. The primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS). The correlation between clinical characteristics and class III β-tubulin expression and patient survival was also explored.

RESULTS

Vinorelbine upregulates TP and downregulates TS in breast cancer cells, thereby further sensitizing tumor cells to capecitabine, which indicated the proper order for sequential therapy should be N → X. Sixty patients were eligible for the phase II trial. No significant difference was observed between the combinational arm and the sequential arm in terms of progression-free survival (PFS), overall response rate (ORR), and overall survival (OS). Only in the subgroup of patients with liver metastases were median PFS and OS significantly prolonged in the combinational arm (8.5 vs. 6.4 months, P = 0.041 and 23.8 vs. 13.9 months, P = 0.028, respectively). No association between class III β-tubulin expression and patient outcome was identified. Grade 3/4 adverse events were more common in the combinational arm.

CONCLUSIONS

Both the NX regimen and pre-planned sequential N → X regimen are acceptable as first-line treatments with comparable efficacies for MBC patients previously treated with anthracyclines and/or taxanes. Sequential monotherapies are recommended as the preferred approach to first-line chemotherapy for most MBC patients in the absence of an imminent visceral crisis and the need for rapid symptom and/or disease control.

Platinum-based compounds for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer

The role of platinum-based compounds (PBCs) in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has been extensively studied. As single agents, high response rates have been observed in first-line therapy, while results in pretreated patients were discouraging. Regimens containing cisplatin/carboplatin together with taxanes showed the highest efficacy and safety as both first-line and second-line therapy. When administered with vinorelbine, the combination was also active and well tolerated in anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated patients. Combining PBCs with etoposide or nucleoside analogues showed moderate activity, yet high toxicity in the case of etoposide. The overall results for the combination with anthracyclines were disappointing. Addition of trastuzumab to PBC combinations showed remarkable activity and good tolerability in patients with HER2/neu overexpression. The use of cisplatin or carboplatin alongside novel targeted therapeutics for patients with triple-negative MBC seems promising and is being further evaluated. The use of PBCs against MBC requires careful patient selection and combination with the right chemotherapeutic agent.