Capecitabine for hormone receptor-positive versus hormone receptor-negative breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Retrospective analyses suggest that capecitabine may carry superior activity in hormone receptor-positive relative to hormone receptor-negative metastatic breast cancer. This review examined the veracity of that finding and explored whether this differential activity extends to early breast cancer.

OBJECTIVES

To assess effects of chemotherapy regimens containing capecitabine compared with regimens not containing capecitabine for women with hormone receptor-positive versus hormone receptor-negative breast cancer across the three major treatment scenarios: neoadjuvant, adjuvant, metastatic.

SEARCH METHODS

On 4 June 2019, we searched the Cochrane Breast Cancer Specialised Register; the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2019, Issue 5) in the Cochrane Library; MEDLINE; Embase; the World Health Organization International Clinical Trials Registry Platform; and ClinicalTrials.gov.

SELECTION CRITERIA

Randomised controlled trials looking at chemotherapy regimens containing capecitabine alone or in combination with other agents versus a control or similar regimen without capecitabine for treatment of breast cancer at any stage. The primary outcome measure for metastatic and adjuvant trials was overall survival (OS), and for neoadjuvant studies pathological complete response (pCR).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently extracted data and assessed risk of bias and certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach. Hazard ratios (HRs) were derived for time-to-event outcomes, and odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes, and meta-analysis was performed using a fixed-effect model.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 26 studies with outcome data by hormone receptor: 12 metastatic studies (n = 4325), 6 neoadjuvant trials (n = 3152), and 8 adjuvant studies (n = 13,457). Capecitabine treatment was added in several different ways across studies. These could be classified as capecitabine alone compared to another treatment, capecitabine substituted for part of the control chemotherapy, and capecitabine added to control chemotherapy. In the metastatic setting, the effect of capecitabine was heterogenous between hormone receptor-positive and -negative tumours. For OS, no difference between capecitabine-containing and non-capecitabine-containing regimens was observed for all participants taken together (HR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.98 to 1.05; 12 studies, 4325 participants; high-certainty evidence), for those with hormone receptor-positive disease (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.84 to 1.04; 7 studies, 1834 participants; high-certainty evidence), and for those with hormone receptor-negative disease (HR 1.00, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.13; 8 studies, 1577 participants; high-certainty evidence). For progression-free survival (PFS), a small improvement was seen for all people (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.82 to 0.96; 12 studies, 4325 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). This was largely accounted for by a moderate improvement in PFS for inclusion of capecitabine in hormone receptor-positive cancers (HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.73 to 0.91; 7 studies, 1594 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) compared to no difference in PFS for hormone receptor-negative cancers (HR 0.96, 95% CI 0.83 to 1.10; 7 studies, 1122 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Quality of life was assessed in five studies; in general there did not seem to be differences in global health scores between the two treatment groups at around two years' follow-up. Neoadjuvant studies were highly variable in design, having been undertaken to test various experimental regimens using pathological complete response (pCR) as a surrogate for disease-free survival (DFS) and OS. Across all patients, capecitabine-containing regimens resulted in little difference in pCR in comparison to non-capecitabine-containing regimens (odds ratio (OR) 1.12, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.33; 6 studies, 3152 participants; high-certainty evidence). By subtype, no difference in pCR was observed for either hormone receptor-positive (OR 1.22, 95% CI 0.76 to 1.95; 4 studies, 964 participants; moderate-certainty evidence) or hormone receptor-negative tumours (OR 1.28, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.66; 4 studies, 646 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Four studies with 2460 people reported longer-term outcomes: these investigators detected no difference in either DFS (HR 1.02, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.21; high-certainty evidence) or OS (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.77 to 1.23; high-certainty evidence). In the adjuvant setting, a modest improvement in OS was observed across all participants (HR 0.89, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.98; 8 studies, 13,547 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and no difference in OS was seen in hormone receptor-positive cancers (HR 0.86, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.09; 3 studies, 3683 participants), whereas OS improved in hormone receptor-negative cancers (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.59 to 0.89; 5 studies, 3432 participants). No difference in DFS or relapse-free survival (RFS) was observed across all participants (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.01; 8 studies, 13,457 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). As was observed for OS, no difference in DFS/RFS was seen in hormone receptor-positive cancers (HR 1.03, 95% CI 0.91 to 1.17; 5 studies, 5604 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and improvements in DFS/RFS with inclusion of capecitabine were observed for hormone receptor-negative cancers (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.86; 7 studies, 3307 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). Adverse effects were reported across all three scenarios. When grade 3 or 4 febrile neutropenia was considered, no difference was seen for capecitabine compared to non-capecitabine regimens in neoadjuvant studies (OR 1.31, 95% CI 0.97 to 1.77; 4 studies, 2890 participants; moderate-certainty evidence), and a marked reduction was seen for capecitabine in adjuvant studies (OR 0.55, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.64; 5 studies, 8086 participants; moderate-certainty evidence). There was an increase in diarrhoea and hand-foot syndrome in neoadjuvant (diarrhoea: OR 1.95, 95% CI 1.32 to 2.89; 3 studies, 2686 participants; hand-foot syndrome: OR 6.77, 95% CI 4.89 to 9.38; 5 studies, 3021 participants; both moderate-certainty evidence) and adjuvant trials (diarrhoea: OR 2.46, 95% CI 2.01 to 3.01; hand-foot syndrome: OR 13.60, 95% CI 10.65 to 17.37; 8 studies, 11,207 participants; moderate-certainty evidence for both outcomes).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

In summary, a moderate PFS benefit by including capecitabine was seen only in hormone receptor-positive cancers in metastatic studies. No benefit of capecitabine for pCR was noted overall or in hormone receptor subgroups when included in neoadjuvant therapy. In contrast, the addition of capecitabine in the adjuvant setting led to improved outcomes for OS and DFS in hormone receptor-negative cancer. Future studies should stratify by hormone receptor and triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) status to clarify the differential effects of capecitabine in these subgroups across all treatment scenarios, to optimally guide capecitabine inclusion.

Capecitabine maintenance therapy following docetaxel/capecitabine combination treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer

The present study aimed to analyze the efficacy of maintenance therapy with single agent capecitabine for human epidermal growth factor receptor (HER2) negative metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients following disease control with 6 cycles of docetaxel plus capecitabine chemotherapy as the first-line treatment. As an initial treatment, 6 cycles of docetaxel plus capecitabine followed by maintenance therapy with capecitabine were administered. A total of 55 patients received combination therapy and 48 patients proceeded to maintenance therapy: Of these, 32 patients (66.7%) were postmenopausal and 37 (77.1%) had estrogen and progesterone receptor positive disease. The median progression-free survival rate with maintenance therapy was 5.5 months (95% CI, 0-11.4 months) and the median overall survival (OS) was 26.6 months (95% CI, 21.8-30.1 months). The use of maintenance therapy improved previous responses in 4 patients (8.3%; 2 partial and 2 complete responses) and 32 patients (66.7%) had stable disease. The median number of maintenance therapy cycles applied was 6.5 (range 1-28, total 441). The observation of side effects, including grade 3/4 neutropenia, febrile neutropenia and fatigue was more common during combination therapy. The results of the present study indicate that maintenance with single agent capecitabine therapy is an effective and tolerable treatment option for HER2 negative MBC patients in which disease control with 6 cycles of docetaxel plus capecitabine chemotherapy is achieved in the first-line setting.

Refining the postmenopausal breast cancer treatment paradigm: the FACE trial

It is clear that letrozole and anastrozole provide significant benefits for patients with breast cancer. However, possible differences in efficacy have been suggested by varying degrees of aromatase inhibition and effectiveness in the neoadjuvant and first-line settings. Analyses of aromatase inhibitor-treated patient subgroups within the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination trial and Breast International Group 1-98 trial, and the National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group's MA.17 study, have also suggested some differences in efficacy. The question is how best to maximize these differences to benefit specific patient subgroups, such as postmenopausal women with node-positive disease. Nodal status is one of the strongest prognostic factors for breast cancer recurrence and several studies have shown that patients with node-positive disease are at higher risk for early relapse. It is thought that patients at increased risk for early relapse may be better treated with an aromatase inhibitor upfront, but the guidelines are unclear as to which aromatase inhibitor should be used. To answer this important question quickly, the Femara Anastrozole Clinical Evaluation (FACE) trial is recruiting node-positive patients and randomizing them to receive either early adjuvant letrozole or early adjuvant anastrozole. The trial has been designed to differentiate between the two drugs in the shortest possible time frame by using patients at increased risk of early recurrence of breast cancer, so that the required number of events to initiate analysis will be obtained more quickly. In total, 4000 patients who have recently undergone surgery for node-positive primary breast cancer (and who have no clinical or radiological evidence of recurrent disease or metastasis) are being enrolled around the world. The FACE trial will not only provide an efficacy evaluation between these two aromatase inhibitors but also provide a valuable head-to-head comparison of the safety profiles of adjuvant letrozole and anastrozole. The data will be transferred to an independent academic organization, the Istituto Nazionale Tumori (Michelangelo Foundation, Milan, Italy), which will verify and analyze the data, removing any perception of bias. An Independent Data Monitoring Committee will then decide when and how the trial data are to be released. The results are expected to further refine the treatment paradigm for breast cancer in postmenopausal patients with node-positive disease.

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.

A multicenter phase II trial of docetaxel and capecitabine as salvage treatment in anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and safety of docetaxel plus capecitabine (DC) combination as salvage treatment in anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

PATIENTS AND TREATMENT

Patients with MBC who had disease progression after initial chemotherapy with anthracyclines (n = 29; 100 %) and taxanes (n = 11; 37.9 %) were treated with oral capecitabine 950 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 and docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 every 3 weeks. Nineteen (65.5 %) patients received this regimen as second line and 10 (34.5 %) as ≥3rd line of therapy. All patients were evaluable for response and toxicity.

RESULTS

Complete response occurred in two (6.9 %) patients and partial response in eleven (37.9 %) for an overall response rate of 44.8 % (95 % CI 26.7-62.9 %). Eleven women (37.9 %) had stable disease and five (17.2 %) progressive disease. Of the eleven patients previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes, five (45.5 %) responded to DC combination. The median duration of response was 5.7 months (range 3.4-64.2), the median time to disease progression 9.3 months (range 1.2-58), and the median overall survival 25.5 months. No toxic death occurred. Neutropenia grade 4 occurred in 58.6 % of patients and three of them (10.3 %) developed neutropenic fever. Non-hematological toxicities were manageable with grade 3 hand-foot syndrome occurring in 6.9 % of the patients, fatigue in 3.4 %, and neurotoxicity in 3.4 %.

CONCLUSION

The DC combination is a valuable regimen as salvage treatment in anthracycline- or anthracycline and taxane-pretreated patients with MBC.

Phase II trial of a novel capecitabine dosing schedule in combination with lapatinib for the treatment of patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer

Our group applied mathematical modeling to capecitabine dosing and predicted 7 days of treatment followed by 7 days of rest (7-7) would improve efficacy and minimize toxicity. The conventional schedule of capecitabine limits full dosing in combination with other agents due to toxicity. Lapatinib inhibits the tyrosine kinase of HER2 and has activity when added to conventionally scheduled capecitabine for the treatment of patients with trastuzumab-refractory, HER2-positive, metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We performed this study to evaluate the activity and tolerability of capecitabine 7-7 with lapatinib in patients with trastuzumab-refractory MBC. Eligible patients had measurable, HER2-positive, MBC that progressed following exposure to trastuzumab. Treatment consisted of capecitabine 2,000 mg orally twice daily, 7-7 and lapatinib 1,250 mg orally daily. The primary endpoint was response rate. Secondary endpoints included toxicity, progression-free survival, and stable disease ≥ 6 months. Twenty-three patients were treated on study. More than 60% had prior chemotherapy for MBC and all had prior trastuzumab. After a median of 23 weeks (range 2-96+), five patients had partial responses (23; 95 CI, 7-44%) and six (27; 95 CI, 10-48%) had stable disease ≥ 6 months. Median progression-free survival was 9.4 months. The most common treatment-related toxicities ≥ grade (gr) 2 were hand-foot syndrome (gr 2 43%; gr 3 4% gr 4 0%), diarrhea (gr 2 26%; gr 3/4 0%), elevated liver chemistries (gr 2 17%; gr 3/4 0%), and anemia (gr 2 13%; gr 3 4%; gr 4 4%). No grade ≥ 3 nausea, vomiting, or diarrhea events occurred. This study demonstrated feasibility and after meeting biostatistical requirements for continued accrual was terminated in anticipation of slow enrollment. Capecitabine 7-7 with lapatinib was well tolerated with minimal gastrointestinal toxicity. Antitumor activity was observed in patients with trastuzumab-refractory MBC.

A phase I trial of oral metronomic vinorelbine plus capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

To determine the dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs) and the maximum tolerated doses (MTD) of oral metronomic vinorelbine with capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Escalated doses of oral metronomic vinorelbine (starting dose 30 mg) every other day continuously and capecitabine (starting dose 800 mg/m(2) bid) on days 1-14 every 21 days were administered. DLTs were evaluated during the first cycle.

RESULTS

Thirty-six women were enrolled at eight escalating dose levels. For twenty-four patients, treatment was first line, for eight second line, and for four third line. The DLT level was reached at oral metronomic vinorelbine 70 mg and capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2), and the recommended MTD doses are vinorelbine 60 mg and capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2). DLTs were febrile neutropenia grade 3 and 4, diarrhea grade 4, and treatment delays due to unresolved neutropenia. There was no treatment-related death. The main toxicities were grade 2-3 neutropenia in 16.6% of patients each, grade 2-3 anemia 16.5%, grade 2-4 fatigue 27.5%, grade 2-3 nausea/vomiting 11%, and grade 3-4 diarrhea 8.2%. Two complete and 10 partial responses were documented.

CONCLUSION

Oral metronomic vinorelbine with capecitabine is a well-tolerated and feasible regimen that merits further evaluation in MBC.

Phase III trial of gemcitabine plus docetaxel versus capecitabine plus docetaxel with planned crossover to the alternate single agent in metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Safety and efficacy of gemcitabine plus docetaxel (GD) and capecitabine plus docetaxel (CD) were compared in patients with metastatic breast cancer, where the alternate crossover monotherapy (GD→C or CD→G) was predetermined.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to 3-week cycles of either gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) on day 1 or capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 plus docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) day 1. Upon progression, patients received crossover monotherapy. Primary end point was time to progression (TtP). Secondary end points evaluated overall response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), and adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

Despite over-accrual of 475 patients, the trial matured with only 324 of 385 planned TtP events due to patient discontinuations. Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 status was not captured in this study. More CD patients (28%) discontinued due to AEs than GD patients (18.0%, P = 0.009). TtP [hazard ratio (HR) = 1.101, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.885-1.370, P = 0.387] and OS (HR = 1.031, 95% CI 0.830-1.280, P = 0.785) were not significantly different comparing GD and CD. ORR was not statistically different (P = 0.239) comparing GD (72 of 207, 34.8%) and CD (78 of 191, 40.8%). TtP, OS, and ORR were not significantly different comparing crossover groups. GD caused greater fatigue, hepatotoxicity, neutropenia, and thrombocytopenia but not febrile neutropenia; CD caused more hand-foot syndrome, gastrointestinal toxicity, and mucositis.

CONCLUSIONS

GD and CD produced similar efficacy and toxicity profiles consistent with prior clinical experience.

Looking beyond surveillance, epidemiology, and end results: patterns of chemotherapy administration for advanced non-small cell lung cancer in a contemporary, diverse population

INTRODUCTION

Chemotherapy prolongs survival without substantially impairing quality of life for medically fit patients with advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC), but population-based studies have shown that only 20 to 30% of these patients receive chemotherapy. These earlier studies have relied on Medicare-linked Surveillance, Epidemiology, and End Results (SEER) data, thus excluding the 30 to 35% of lung cancer patients younger than 65 years. Therefore, we determined the use of chemotherapy in a contemporary, diverse NSCLC population encompassing all patient ages.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective analysis of patients diagnosed with stage IV NSCLC from 2000 to 2007 at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center. Demographic, treatment, and outcome data were obtained from hospital tumor registries. The association between these variables was assessed using univariate analysis and multivariate logistic regression.

RESULTS

In all, 718 patients met criteria for analysis. Mean age was 60 years, 58% were men, and 45% were white. Three hundred fifty-three patients (49%) received chemotherapy. In univariate analysis, receipt of chemotherapy was associated with age (53% of patients younger than 65 years versus 41% of patients aged 65 years and older; p = 0.003) and insurance type (p < 0.001). In a multivariate model, age and insurance type remained associated with receipt of chemotherapy. For individuals receiving chemotherapy, median survival was 9.2 months, compared with 2.3 months for untreated patients (p < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

In a contemporary population representing the full age range of patients with advanced NSCLC, chemotherapy was administered to approximately half of all patients-more than twice the rate reported in some earlier studies. Patient age and insurance type are associated with receipt of chemotherapy.

Survival data of patients with anthracycline- or taxane-pretreated or resistant metastatic breast cancer

Metastatic breast cancer is considered incurable. Despite effective response rates achieved with anthracycline or taxane anticancer drugs, cancers in approximately one third of patients fail to respond to first-line treatment with these agents. Patients who do respond show disease progression after a median of approximately 7-8 months. As a consequence, the development of new salvage treatments and strategies for metastatic breast cancer continues to be a high priority. However, few randomized controlled trials have been conducted in patients in whom previous treatment with anthracyclines and taxanes fails. Among those trials that have, few demonstrated an improvement in overall survival. Overall survival is considered the gold standard for evaluating the benefits of experimental cancer therapies. In addition, many investigators use progression-free survival or time to progression. Survival outcomes from large trials of newer combinations, such as ixabepilone plus capecitabine and gemcitabine plus vinorelbine, are encouraging. They have shown significant benefits in terms of progression-free survival, and they have revealed demonstrable benefits for several hard-to-treat subgroups of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Addition of the targeted agents trastuzumab, bevacizumab, and lapatinib to chemotherapy has produced significant benefits in time to progression and progression-free survival. Ongoing research should help in determining which patients are likely to benefit from such agents when first- or second-line therapy fails and in ascertaining whether this therapy can be optimized to maximize therapeutic potential and minimize unnecessary toxicity.

Phase III study of gemcitabine plus docetaxel compared with capecitabine plus docetaxel for anthracycline-pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer

PURPOSE

Patients with metastatic breast cancer who are pretreated with anthracyclines frequently receive taxane-based combinations. This phase III study compared the efficacy and safety of gemcitabine-docetaxel (GD) with capecitabine-docetaxel (CD) in advanced breast cancer.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients were randomly assigned to GD (G 1,000 mg/m(2) days 1 and 8; D 75 mg/m(2) day 1) or CD (C 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily days 1 through 14; D 75 mg/m(2) day 1) every 21 days. Comparison of progression-free survival (PFS) was the primary objective.

RESULTS

Patient characteristics were balanced between arms (N = 305). Median PFS was 8.05 months (95% CI, 6.60 to 8.71) for GD and 7.98 (95% CI, 6.93 to 8.77) for CD (log-rank P = .121). Overall response rate (ORR) was 32% in both arms, and overall survival (OS) was not different between arms (P = .983). Time to treatment failure (TTF; defined as discontinuation, progressive disease, death as a result of any cause, or the start of a new anticancer therapy) was superior in the GD arm (P = .059). Hematologic toxicity was similar in both arms, except for grades 3 to 4 leukopenia (GD, 78%; CD, 66%; P = .025) and transfusions (GD, 17%; CD, 7%; P = .0051). Grades 3 to 4 diarrhea, mucositis, and hand-and-foot syndrome were significantly higher in the CD arm. Fewer patients in the GD arm discontinued because of drug-related adverse events (13% v 27% in CD; P = .002).

CONCLUSION

No difference was observed between GD and CD arms in PFS, ORR, and OS. TTF was longer in the GD arm. These findings, combined with a nonhematologic toxicity profile that favors GD over approved doses of CD, suggest that gemcitabine may be a better option than capecitabine in combination with docetaxel in this clinical setting.

Paclitaxel, Epirubicin and Capecitabine (TEX) as First-Line Treatment for Metastatic Breast Cancer: a Pilot Phase I/II Feasibility Study

Thirteen patients with untreated metastatic breast cancer received epirubicin 60 mg/m(2), paclitaxel 155 mg/m(2) (both day 1) and capecitabine 665 mg/m(2) twice daily (days 1-14) every 21 days, with intra-patient dose escalation/reduction. Grade 3/4 events were infrequent. Nine patients (69%) achieved an objective response. Median time to progression and overall survival were 6.6 and 23.5 months, respectively.

Considerations in treatment choice for metastatic breast cancer

Chemotherapy treatment choices for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have become increasingly complex as therapeutic options multiply. In addition, the more frequent use of adjuvant chemotherapy coupled with the introduction of new standard adjuvant therapies has made these choices more difficult. Another issue that remains unsettled is whether to employ combination therapy or to use each agent singly until its value is exhausted. The results of recent studies investigating this issue have revealed higher response rates, time to tumor progression and, in some cases, improved overall survival with doublet therapy. However, there was no planned crossover in these trials and, as such, the absolute benefits of doublet therapy remain undetermined. The future of therapy for MBC appears to be combining effective single-agent chemotherapy with novel biologic agents. For example, compared with paclitaxel alone, therapy comprising paclitaxel plus bevacizumab produced a doubling of response rate and progression-free survival. However, similar data are required for both the first- and the second-line setting, and for other chemotherapy agents, for example, docetaxel and navelbine. Trastuzumab is the treatment of choice for patients with HER2-positive tumors. Its use in combination with chemotherapy, particularly the taxanes, is well established. However, much remains to be learned about biologic agents; for example, trials need to establish whether these therapies should be continued at the time of progression or whether other treatments should be given in their place. A recent study in patients whose disease had progressed after trastuzumab and chemotherapy and who were subsequently given lapatinib, has reported promising outcomes for this agent. When presented with the many options that are now available for the treatment of MBC, we must keep in mind the primary goal of such treatment: palliation of disease with minimal toxicity. Furthermore, a concurrent requirement for prolongation of survival is now commonplace. However, it is clear that there is currently no "gold standard" treatment for MBC, although the future of therapy appears to be the combination of effective single agents with novel biologic therapies.

First-line treatment options for patients with HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer: the impact of modern adjuvant chemotherapy

The management of early breast cancer has evolved rapidly in recent years. Consequently, the range of first-line treatment options for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is becoming increasingly complicated and therapy depends on a complex interaction of tumor, patient, and physician variables. Arguably one of the most important factors determining choice of first-line chemotherapy is prior adjuvant therapy. We have reviewed data from large, randomized clinical trials to identify the most effective regimens and help clinicians to select first-line treatment based on previous adjuvant therapy. In this review we provide recommendations on the most appropriate first-line therapy according to the type of previous adjuvant therapy. With such a wide array of treatment options available, none is likely to become the gold-standard first-line treatment for MBC. Furthermore, as increasing emphasis is placed on the quality as well as the duration of survival after development of MBC, treatment decisions should take into account tumor characteristics, toxicity, convenience, potential impact on quality of life, and patient preference, in addition to robust efficacy data.

Effective oral chemotherapy for breast cancer: pillars of strength

Traditionally, anticancer therapy has been dominated by intravenous drug therapy. However, oral agents provide an attractive approach to chemotherapy and use of oral treatments is increasing. We discuss the benefits and challenges of oral chemotherapy from the perspectives of patients, healthcare providers and healthcare funders. Important issues include patient preference, efficacy, compliance, bioavailability, reimbursement, use in special patient populations, financial and staff time savings and flexibility of dosing. We review data for traditional oral agents (e.g. cyclophosphamide, methotrexate), newer oral chemotherapies (e.g. capecitabine), oral formulations of traditionally intravenous agents (e.g. vinorelbine, idarubicin) and new biologic agents under evaluation in breast cancer (e.g. tyrosine kinase inhibitors). Lastly, we review studies of all-oral combination regimens. The wealth of data available and the increasing use of oral agents in breast cancer suggest that many of the concerns and perceptions about oral therapy, including efficacy and bioavailability, have been overcome, and that oral therapy will play a major role in breast cancer management in the future in both the metastatic and adjuvant settings.

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

BACKGROUND

Phase II/III trials have shown that capecitabine is an active, well-tolerated therapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We report clinical findings from an expanded access program enabling patients ineligible for investigative trials to receive capecitabine before its approval and availability.

METHODS

Patients pretreated with at least two chemotherapy regimens, including a taxane, for MBC received oral capecitabine until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity.

RESULTS

Six hundred and thirty-one patients received capecitabine (mean duration 3.8 months, range 0.1-24.7 months). The most common treatment-related grade 3/4 toxicities were diarrhea (9%) and hand-foot syndrome (8%). Grade 3/4 alopecia was absent and grade 3/4 myelosuppression was rare. Dose was modified in 172 patients (27%). Objective response rate in 349 evaluable patients was 35%. Median time to progression (n = 604) was 6.6 months (95% confidence interval, CI, 5.6-7.6) and median overall survival (n = 569) was 10.0 months (95% CI, 8.5-15.3).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings in a cohort of patients with pretreated progressive breast cancer confirm the high efficacy and tolerability of outpatient capecitabine.

Sequential vinorelbine–capecitabine followed by docetaxel in advanced breast cancer: long-term results of a pilot phase II trial

PURPOSE

To evaluate the response rate of the combination of capecitabine (C) and vinorelbine (V) followed by Docetaxel (D) in the 1st line treatment of advanced and metastatic breast cancer patients.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with measurable disease and no prior chemotherapy in advanced disease were eligible. Pts received V 25 mg/m(2) on day 1 and 8 in combination with C 825 mg/m(2) twice a day from day 1 to 14 every 3 weeks for four cycles followed by 12 consecutive weeks of D 25 mg/m(2)/w.

RESULTS

Between March 2002 and November 2003, 40 patients were enrolled. Median age was 57 years. Of patients, 77.5% of pts had visceral involvement and 32.5% had more than two metastatic sites. In the adjuvant setting, 62.5% received anthracycline and 10% Taxanes. In the intent-to-treat population, an overall objective response was observed in 25 patients (62.5, 95% CI, 45.8-77.27) and stable disease in 5 (12.5%). Median time till progression (TTP) was 12.3 months (range 1.5-48; 95% CI, 10.05-14.54). The median survival was 35.7 months (range 2-47). Reported grade 3-4 toxicities under Navcap were neutropenia (4 pts), anemia (1 pt), thrombopenia (1 pt) and febrile neutropenia (3 pts). Reported grade 3-4 toxicities under weekly Docetaxel were neutropenia (1 pt), thrombopenia (2 pts), leucopenia (1 pt) and anemia (1 pt).

CONCLUSION

The sequential use of Navcap followed by weekly Docetaxel demonstrated an interesting efficacy with a prolonged TTP and OS and warrants further evaluation.

Capecitabine and paclitaxel combination chemotherapy for inoperable or recurrent breast cancer: a phase I dose-finding study by the Kinki Breast Cancer Study Group

BACKGROUND

The combination of capecitabine and paclitaxel (XP) has demonstrated synergistic antitumor activity in preclinical models. Three-weekly XP regimens have demonstrated excellent efficacy in phase II and III trials in metastatic breast cancer. We conducted a dose-finding study to identify the recommended 4-weekly XP regimen in patients with inoperable or recurrent breast cancer for phase II evaluation.

METHODS

Eligible patients had inoperable or recurrent breast cancer previously treated with chemotherapy (but not capecitabine or paclitaxel) in the (neo)adjuvant or metastatic setting. Each 4-week treatment cycle consisted of escalating doses of capecitabine (628 or 829 mg/m(2) twice daily [b.i.d.] on days 1-21) and paclitaxel (80 or 90 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15). Dose-limiting toxicities (DLT) were evaluated during the first two cycles.

RESULTS

Nine patients were treated. At dose level 1 (capecitabine 628 mg/m(2) b.i.d. plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2)), one patient experienced a DLT (grade 3 non-hematologic toxicity). There were no further DLTs at dose level 1 or 2. Although the MTD was not reached, dose level 2 (capecitabine 829 mg/m(2) b.i.d., days 1-21, plus paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2), days 1, 8, and 15, every 28 days) is recommended for phase II evaluation, taking into consideration the single-agent doses used in Japan and the doses identified in Western studies of 3-weekly XP. The overall response rate was 44%; all patients treated at dose level 2 achieved a partial response.

CONCLUSIONS

This 4-weekly XP regimen was well tolerated, active in patients with pretreated advanced breast cancer, and could be given as outpatient treatment. These results are consistent with findings of phase II and III trials evaluating 3-weekly regimens, and indicate that further investigation of a 4-weekly XP regimen is warranted.

Capecitabine in Combination with Novel Targeted Agents in the Management of Metastatic Breast Cancer: Underlying Rationale and Results of Clinical Trials

At present there is no established standard of care for metastatic breast cancer and prognosis remains poor, although the use of newer chemotherapeutic regimens has led to modest improvements in survival. Capecitabine, an oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil, is a promising addition to these approaches, having already shown single-agent activity against metastatic breast cancer. Following a pivotal trial demonstrating that capecitabine confers increased survival when used in combination with docetaxel, it is being investigated intensively in combined regimens using other standard chemotherapeutic agents, as well as with novel molecularly targeted therapies. Among the novel agents, the most intensively studied in combination with capecitabine is trastuzumab. Despite preclinical data suggesting that these two agents might not show additive effects, clinical trials have been very encouraging for both heavily pretreated patients and for patients receiving first-line therapy in the metastatic setting. This work is being further extended in an ongoing trial in the neoadjuvant setting. An initial trial in combination with bevacizumab, enrolling heavily pretreated patients, was less successful, but following the example of the E2100 trial, this combination is being re-examined in less heavily treated patients. In addition, this review discusses ongoing trials with an array of newer molecularly targeted agents. Significant improvement in time to progression has already been demonstrated in the combination of lapatinib and capecitabine compared with capecitabine monotherapy; for the most part, however, these trials are still in early stages.