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.

A comparison of toxicity profiles between the lower and standard dose capecitabine in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) bid × 14 days every 21 days (14/21) has been reported to have similar efficacy but more favorable toxicity profile than the approved dosage of 1250 mg/m(2). However, a dose-toxicity relationship of capecitabine in breast cancer patients has not been fully elucidated. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare a safety profile between capecitabine starting dose of 1000 and 1250 mg/m(2) bid. Studies were identified using PubMed, ASCO, and San Antonio Breast Cancer Symposium abstract databases through December 2015. Eligible trials included phase II/III trials of capecitabine monotherapy at 1000 or 1250 mg/m(2) bid (14/21) for breast cancer patients that reported adequate safety data for all (grade 1-4) or high (grade 3-4) grade hand foot syndrome (HFS), diarrhea, fatigue, nausea, vomiting, stomatitis, neutropenia, thrombocytopenia, or anemia, as well as dose reductions, treatment discontinuation or treatment-related deaths. The summary incidence was calculated using random-effects models. A total of 4833 patients from 34 trials were included. 1218 and 3615 patients were treated with capecitabine 1000 and 1250 mg/m(2) bid, respectively. A significantly lower incidence of dose reduction (15.9 vs. 39.0 %; P = 0.007), high-grade HFS (12.0 vs. 19.0 %; P = 0.01), diarrhea (5.3 vs. 9.1 %; P = 0.01), and neutropenia (1.8 vs. 7.3 %; P < 0.01), and all-grade neutropenia (5.8 vs. 25.4 %; P = 0.01) was seen in capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) compared to 1250 mg/m(2). Capecitabine monotherapy at 1000 mg/m(2) bid (14/21) has a clinically meaningful and significantly better toxicity profile compared to 1250 mg/m(2) bid (14/21).

Taxanes versus S-1 as the first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (SELECT BC): an open-label, non-inferiority, randomised phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

Oral fluoropyrimidines are used for the first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer to avoid severe adverse effects, although firm supporting evidence is lacking. We aimed to establish whether S-1 is non-inferior to taxanes in this setting.

METHODS

We did an open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial at 154 hospitals in Japan. We enrolled individuals who had HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer who had received no chemotherapy for advanced disease, and who were resistant to endocrine treatment. Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) either to taxane (docetaxel 60-75 mg/m(2) at intervals of 3-4 weeks; paclitaxel 80-100 mg/m(2) weekly for 3 of 4 weeks; or paclitaxel 175 mg/m(2) at intervals of 3-4 weeks) or to S-1 (40-60 mg twice daily for 28 consecutive days, followed by a 14-day break). Randomisation was done centrally with the minimisation method, with stratification by institution, liver metastasis, oestrogen and progesterone receptor status, previous treatment with taxanes or oral fluorouracil, and time from surgery to recurrence. The primary endpoint was overall survival, with a prespecified non-inferiority margin of 1·333 for the hazard ratio (HR). The primary efficacy analysis was done in the full analysis set, which consisted of all patients who took at least one study treatment and who had all data after randomisation. This trial is registered with the University Hospital Medical Information Network, Japan (protocol ID C000000416).

FINDINGS

Between Oct 27, 2006, and July 30, 2010, we enrolled 618 patients (309 assigned to taxane; 309 assigned to S-1). The full analysis set consisted of 286 patients in the taxane group and 306 in the S-1 group. Median follow-up was 34·6 months (IQR 17·9-44·4). Median overall survival was 35·0 months (95% CI 31·1-39·0) in the S-1 group and 37·2 months (33·0-40·1) in the taxane group (HR 1·05 [95% CI 0·86-1·27]; pnon-inferiority=0·015). The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (20 [7%] of 307 patients in the S-1 group vs nine [3%] of 290 patients in the taxane group), fatigue (ten [3%] vs 12 [4%]), and oedema (one [<1%] vs 12 [4%]). Treatment-related deaths were reported in two patients in the taxane group.

INTERPRETATION

S-1 is non-inferior to taxane with respect to overall survival as a first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer. S-1 should be considered a new option for first-line chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

FUNDING

Comprehensive Support Project for Oncology Research of the Public Health Research Foundation, Japan; Taiho.

Efficacy of capecitabine monotherapy as the first-line treatment of metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer

AIMS AND BACKGROUND

Capecitabine is a potent and safe agent that can be used after anthracycline and taxane treatment in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). The purpose of this study was to investigate the efficacy and safety of capecitabine monotherapy as a first-line treatment in human epidermal receptor 2 (HER2)-negative patients with MBC.

METHODS AND STUDY DESIGN

In this single-center trial, a total of 109 HER2-negative patients with MBC who received capecitabine monotherapy as first-line treatment between 2003 and 2014 were retrospectively analyzed. Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was carried out for progression-free survival (PFS) and for overall survival (OS). Two-sided p values of <0.05 were considered statistically significant.

RESULTS

Median PFS was 7.0 ± 0.67 (confidence interval (CI) 5.6-8.3) months and median OS was 30 ± 4.1 (CI 21.8- 38.1) months. First-line capecitabine treatment for HER2-negative MBC was more effective in the estrogen receptor (ER)-positive patient population compared to the ER-negative group (median PFS 9 vs 4 months (p = 0.002), median OS 33 vs 21 months (p = 0.01)). Indeed, the overall response rate in the ER-negative group was 16%, while this was calculated as 38% for ER-positive cases. While most of our patient population was treated with a higher dose (1250 mg/m2), the observed grade 3-4 toxicities were lower compared to some previously reported phase II and phase III capecitabine studies.

CONCLUSIONS

Capecitabine monotherapy is an effective and safe regimen for ER-positive, HER2-negative patients with MBC. Its low toxicity profile compared to other intravenous cytotoxic agents and the ease of its oral administration make this agent a preferable option for both physicians and patients.

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin: a guide to its use in various malignancies

Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin (Caelyx(®) [EU], Doxil(®) [USA]) represents an improved formulation of conventional doxorubicin, with reduced cardiotoxicity and an improved pharmacokinetic profile. As shown by evidence from clinical trials, intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin is a useful option in the treatment of various malignancies, including metastatic breast cancer, ovarian cancer, multiple myeloma, and AIDS-related Kaposi sarcoma. It has a favourable safety profile relative to conventional doxorubicin and other available chemotherapy agents.

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.

Pooled analysis of individual patient data from capecitabine monotherapy clinical trials in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer

We assessed the efficacy and safety of capecitabine across treatment lines, and the impact of patient and disease characteristics on outcomes using data from phase II/III trials. Individual patient data were pooled from seven Roche/Genentech-led trials conducted from 1996 to 2008 where single-agent capecitabine was the test or control regimen for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Data were analyzed from 805 patients: 268 in the first-line metastatic setting and 537 in the second-line or later setting. Baseline characteristics were balanced across treatment lines. Patients receiving second-line or later versus first-line capecitabine had lower objective response rates (ORR: 19.0 vs. 25.0 %, respectively, odds ratio 0.70; 95 % CI: 0.5-1.0) and significantly shorter progression-free survival (PFS: median 112.0 days [3.7 months] vs. 150.0 days [4.9 months]; p < 0.0001) and overall survival (OS: median 396.0 days [13.0 months] vs. 666.0 days [21.9 months]; p < 0.0001). In multivariate analysis by backward elimination, significantly improved ORR (p = 0.0036), PFS (p < 0.0001) and OS (p < 0.0001) with capecitabine were demonstrated in patients with estrogen receptor (ER) and/or progesterone receptor (PgR)-positive versus both ER and PgR-negative tumors. Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) was the most common adverse event (AE) in 63 % of patients. Overall, 7 % of patients discontinued and two patients (<1 %) died from treatment-related AEs. Significantly improved survival was observed in patients developing capecitabine-related HFS (p < 0.0001 PFS/OS) or diarrhea (p = 0.004 OS; p = 0.0045 PFS) versus patients without these events. In this pooled analysis of individual patient data, first-line capecitabine was associated with improved ORR, PFS, and OS versus second or later lines. Multivariate analyses identified greater ORR, PFS, and OS with capecitabine in patients with ER and/or PgR-positive versus ER/PgR-negative tumors. Safety was in-line with previous phase III trials in MBC.

Capecitabine monotherapy: review of studies in first-line HER-2-negative metastatic breast cancer

The goals of treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are to prolong overall survival (OS) while maximizing quality of life, palliating symptoms, and delaying tumor progression. For many years, anthracyclines and taxanes have been the mainstay of treatment for MBC, but these agents are now commonly administered earlier in the course of the disease. A recent meta-analysis revealed adverse effects on OS and overall response rates in patients with MBC receiving first-line anthracycline-based chemotherapy following relapse on adjuvant chemotherapy. Noncrossresistant cytotoxic agents and combinations that combine high clinical activity and acceptable tolerability while being convenient for patients are therefore needed for the first-line treatment of MBC patients. Capecitabine has substantial antitumor activity in the first-line treatment of patients with MBC in prospective, randomized, phase II/III clinical trials as monotherapy and in combination with biologic and novel agents. First-line capecitabine monotherapy has a favorable safety profile, lacking myelosuppression and alopecia, and does not compromise the administration of further lines of chemotherapy. Capecitabine is suitable for long-term administration without the cumulative toxicity that can limit the prolonged use of other chemotherapy agents. Here, we review the available data on capecitabine as a single agent for first-line treatment of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative MBC.