Network meta-analysis of eribulin versus other chemotherapies used as second- or later-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer

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.

Cost-effectiveness of utidelone and capecitabine versus monotherapy in anthracycline- and taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer

Background

This study aimed to assess the cost-effectiveness of combining utidelone with capecitabine, compared to capecitabine monotherapy, for the treatment of anthracycline- and taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer within the Chinese healthcare system.

Methods

A partitioned survival model was formulated based on patient characteristics from the NCT02253459 trial. Efficacy, safety, and health economics data were sourced from the trial and real-world clinical practices. We derived estimates for costs, quality-adjusted life years (QALYs), and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) for the two treatment strategies. Sensitivity and subgroup analyses were conducted to rigorously evaluate uncertainties' impact.

Results

Over a 5-year span, the combination therapy manifested substantially higher costs than capecitabine monotherapy, with a differential of US$ 26,370.63. This combined approach conferred an additional 0.49 QALYs, resulting in an ICER of US$ 53,874.17/QALY. Utilizing the established willingness-to-pay threshold, the combination might not consistently be deemed cost-effective when juxtaposed against monotherapy. However, at an ICER of US$ 53,874.4/QALY, the probability of the combination being cost-effective increased to 48.97%. Subgroup analysis revealed that the combination was more cost-effective than capecitabine alone in specific patient groups, including those <60 years, patients with more than two chemotherapy rounds, patients lacking certain metastases, patients having limited metastatic sites, patients with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group status of 0, and patients with particular hormone receptor profiles.

Conclusion

Although the combination of utidelone and capecitabine may not be an economically viable universal choice for anthracycline- and taxane-refractory metastatic breast cancer, it could be more cost-effective in specific patient subgroups than capecitabine monotherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of extended DPYD testing before fluoropyrimidine chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer in the UK

The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ToxNav©, a multivariant genetic test, to screen for DPYD followed by personalized chemotherapy dosing for metastatic breast cancer in the UK compared with no testing followed by standard dose, standard of care. In the main analysis, ToxNav was dominant over standard of care, producing 0.19 additional quality-adjusted life years and savings of £78,000 per patient over a lifetime. The mean additional quality-adjusted life years per person from 1000 simulations was 0.23 savings (95% CI: 0.22-0.24) at £99,000 (95% CI: £95-102,000). Varying input parameters independently by range of 20% was unlikely to change the results in the main analysis. The probabilistic sensitivity analysis showed ~97% probability of the ToxNav strategy to be dominant.

The Place of Chemotherapy in The Evolving Treatment Landscape for Patients With HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC

Endocrine therapy (ET) for the treatment of patients with hormone receptor-positive/human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HR-positive/HER2-negative) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has changed markedly over recent years with the emergence of new ETs and the use of molecularly targeted agents. Cytotoxic chemotherapy continues, however, to have an important role in these patients and it is important to maximize its efficacy while minimizing toxicity to optimize outcomes. This review examines current HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC clinical guidelines and addresses key questions around the use of chemotherapy in the face of emerging therapeutic options. Specifically, the indications for chemotherapy in patients with HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC and the choice of optimal chemotherapy are discussed.