Epirubicin Plus Cyclophosphamide Followed by Docetaxel Versus Epirubicin Plus Docetaxel Followed by Capecitabine As Adjuvant Therapy for Node-Positive Early Breast Cancer: Results From the GEICAM/2003-10 Study

Racial and Ethnic Disparities in European Breast Cancer Clinical Trials

Breast cancer is the most prevalent female cancer worldwide with known correlations between the race and tumor characteristics of the patients and prognosis. International and US-based studies, however, have reported a disproportionate representation of Black and Hispanic patients in clinical trials. This is the first study assessing race and ethnicity reporting trends and inclusion in European breast cancer trials. The PubMed and ClinicalTrials.gov databases were systematically searched for trials on breast cancer treatment conducted exclusively in Europe between 2010 and 2022. Of the 97 identified trials, race was reported in 10.31%. Multinational participation, but not the study size or trial phase, was significantly associated with higher race reporting trends. These 10 trials featured a White-predominant population, with 1.08% Asian and 0.88% Black patients included. The acquisition of the race and ethnicity data of patients in European trials is lower compared to the U.S. or worldwide studies and does not permit extensive analysis of minority participation. In a limited analysis, the low rates of minority participation are concerning, based on population-based data on minorities in select European countries. These observations should encourage race reporting practices in European breast cancer trials and adequate minority participation to support the generalizability of the results of the studies and promote healthcare equity.

Intermediate clinical endpoints in early-stage breast cancer: an analysis of individual patient data from the Gruppo Italiano Mammella and Mammella Intergruppo trials

Background

Intermediate clinical endpoints (ICEs) are frequently used as primary endpoint in randomised trials (RCTs). We aim to assess whether changes in different ICEs can be used to predict changes in overall survival (OS) in adjuvant breast cancer trials.

Methods

Individual patient level data from adjuvant phase III RCTs conducted by the Gruppo Italiano Mammella (GIM) and Mammella Intergruppo (MIG) study groups were used. ICEs were computed according to STEEP criteria. Using a two-stage meta-analytic model, we assessed the surrogacy of each ICE at both the outcome (i.e., OS and ICE are correlated irrespective of treatment) and trial (i.e., treatment effects on ICE and treatment effect on OS are correlated) levels. The following ICEs were considered as potential surrogate endpoints of OS: disease-free survival (DFS), distant disease-free survival (DDFS), distant relapse-free survival (DRFS), recurrence-free survival (RFS), recurrence-free interval (RFI), distant recurrence-free interval (DRFI), breast cancer-free interval (BCFI), and invasive breast cancer-free survival (IBCFS). The estimates of the degree of correlation were obtained by copula models and weighted linear regression. Kendall's τ and R2 ≥ 0.70 were considered as indicators of a clinically relevant surrogacy.

Findings

Among the 12,397 patients enrolled from November 1992 to July 2012 in six RCTs, median age at enrolment was 57 years (interquartile range (IQR) 49-65). After a median follow-up of 10.3 years (IQR 6.4-14.5), 2131 (17.2%) OS events were observed, with 1390 (65.2%) attributed to breast cancer. At the outcome-level, Kendall's τ ranged from 0.69 for BCFI to 0.84 for DRFS. For DFS, DDFS, DRFS, RFS, RFI, DRFI, BCFI, and IBCFS endpoints, over 95% of the 8-year OS variability was attributable to the variation of the 5-year ICE. At the trial-level, treatment effects for the different ICEs and OS were strongly correlated, with the highest correlation for RFS and DRFS and the lowest for BCFI.

Interpretation

Our results provide evidence supporting the use of DFS, DDFS, DRFS, RFS, RFI, DRFI, and IBCFS as primary endpoint in breast cancer adjuvant trials.

Funding

This analysis was supported by the Italian Association for Cancer Research ("Associazione Italiana per la Ricerca sul Cancro", AIRC; IG 2017/20760) and by Italian Ministry of Health-5 × 1000 funds (years 2021-2022).

Capecitabine-based chemotherapy in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Introduction

The efficacy and safety of adjuvant capecitabine in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer remains undefined. A meta-analysis was conducted to elucidate whether capecitabine-based regimens could improve survival in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Methods

The current study searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, Web of Science, and ClinicalTrials.gov proceedings up to 2023.9. Disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and grade 3-4 adverse events (AEs) were assessed. Extracted or calculated hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were pooled.

Results

The capecitabine-based regimens showed significant advantages in DFS (HR = 0.81, 95% CI: 0.73-0.90; P <.001) and OS (HR = 0.75, 95% CI: 0.65-0.87; P <.001) from 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 5,390 unselected participants. Subgroup analysis of DFS showed analogous results derived from patients with lymph node negative (HR = 0.68, 95% CI: 0.50-0.92; P = .006) and capecitabine duration no less than six cycles (HR = 0.73; 95% CI: 0.62-0.86; P <.001). Improvement of DFS in the addition group (HR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.68-0.87; P <.001) and adjuvant setting (HR = 0.79, 95% CI: 0.70-0.89; P <.001) was observed. As to safety profile, capecitabine was associated with more frequent stomatitis (OR = 5.05, 95% CI: 1.45-17.65, P = .011), diarrhea (OR = 6.11, 95% CI: 2.12-17.56; P =.001), and hand-foot syndrome (OR = 31.82, 95% CI: 3.23-313.65, P = .003).

Conclusions

Adjuvant capecitabine-based chemotherapy provided superior DFS and OS to early-stage TNBC. The benefits to DFS in selected patients with lymph node negative and the addition and extended duration of capecitabine were demonstrated.

Optimal adjuvant treatment strategies for TNBC patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment

INTRODUCTION

The therapeutic armamentarium for the neoadjuvant treatment of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has significantly expanded with the hopes of improving pathological complete response (pCR) rates and the possibility of a cure. However, the data on optimal adjuvant treatment strategies for patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment is limited.

AREAS COVERED

We discuss the available data on adjuvant treatment for residual TNBC after neoadjuvant treatment considering clinical trials. Additionally, we discuss ongoing trials to give perspectives on how the field may evolve in the next decade.

EXPERT OPINION

The available data support the use of adjuvant capecitabine for all patients and either adjuvant capecitabine or olaparib for patients with germline BRCA1 and BRCA2 mutations, according to availability. The CREATE-X study of capecitabine and OlympiA study of olaparib demonstrated disease-free and overall survival benefits. There is an unmet need for studies comparing these two options for patients with germline BRCA mutations. Further research is needed to delineate the use of immunotherapy in the adjuvant setting, molecular targeted therapy for patients with molecular alterations other than germline BRCA mutation, combinations, and antibody-drug conjugates to further improve outcomes.

Long-term outcomes of high-risk HR-positive and HER2-negative early breast cancer patients from GEICAM adjuvant studies and El Álamo IV registry

PURPOSE

The monarchE trial showed that the addition of abemaciclib improves efficacy in patients with high-risk early breast cancer (EBC). We analyzed the long-term outcomes of a population similar to the monarchE trial to put into context the potential benefit of abemaciclib.

METHODS

HR-positive/HER2-negative EBC patients eligible for the monarchE study were selected from 3 adjuvant clinical trials and a breast cancer registry. Patients with ≥ 4 positive axillary lymph nodes (N +) or 1-3 N + with tumor size ≥ 5 cm and/or histologic grade 3 and/or Ki67 ≥ 20%, who had undergone surgery with curative intent and had received anthracyclines ± taxanes and endocrine therapy in the neoadjuvant and /or adjuvant setting were included. We performed analysis of Invasive Disease-Free Survival (iDFS), Distant Disease-Free Survival (dDFS) and Overall Survival (OS) at 5 and 10 years, as well as yearly (up to 10) of Invasive Relapse Rate (IRR), Distant Relapse Rate (DRR) and Death Rate (DR).

RESULTS

A total of 1,617 patients were analyzed from the GEICAM-9906 (312), GEICAM-2003-10 (210), and GEICAM-2006-10 (160) trials plus 935 from El Álamo IV. With a median follow-up of 10.1 years, the 5 and 10 years iDFS rates were 75.2% and 57.0%, respectively. The dDFS and OS rates at 5 years were 77.4% and 88.8% and the respective figures at 10 years were 59.7% and 70.9%.

CONCLUSIONS

This data points out the need for new therapies for those patients. A longer follow-up of the monarchE study to see the real final benefit with abemaciclib is warranted.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinTrials.gov: GEICAM/9906: NCT00129922; GEICAM/ 2003-10: NCT00129935 and GEICAM/ 2006-10: NCT00543127.

Current Treatment Landscape for Early Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (TNBC)

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) accounts for 15-20% of all breast cancers and is characterized by an aggressive nature and a high rate of recurrence despite neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy. Although novel agents are constantly being introduced for the treatment of breast cancer, conventional cytotoxic chemotherapy based on anthracyclines and taxanes is the mainstay treatment option for TNBC. Based on CTNeoBC pooled analysis data, the achievement of pathologic CR (pCR) in TNBC is directly linked to improved survival outcomes. Therefore, the treatment paradigm for early TNBC has shifted to neoadjuvant treatment, and the escalation of neoadjuvant chemotherapy to improve the pCR rate and the addition of post-neoadjuvant chemotherapy to control the residual disease have been investigated. In this article, we review the current treatment landscape for early TNBC, from standard cytotoxic chemotherapy to recent data on immune checkpoint inhibitors, capecitabine, and olaparib.

Triple-Negative PAM50 Non-Basal Breast Cancer Subtype Predicts Benefit from Extended Adjuvant Capecitabine

PURPOSE

Predictive biomarkers for capecitabine benefit in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) have been recently proposed using samples from phase III clinical trials, including non-basal phenotype and biomarkers related to angiogenesis, stroma, and capecitabine activation genes. We aimed to validate these findings on the larger phase III GEICAM/CIBOMA clinical trial.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Tumor tissues from patients with TNBC randomized to standard (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy followed by capecitabine versus observation were analyzed using a 164-gene NanoString custom nCounter codeset measuring mRNA expression. A prespecified statistical plan sought to verify the predictive capacity of PAM50 non-basal molecular subtype and tested the hypotheses that breast tumors with increased expression of (meta)genes for cytotoxic cells, mast cells, endothelial cells, PDL2, and 38 individual genes benefit from adjuvant capecitabine for distant recurrence-free survival (DRFS; primary endpoint) and overall survival.

RESULTS

Of the 876 women enrolled in the GEICAM/CIBOMA trial, 658 (75%) were evaluable for analysis (337 with capecitabine and 321 without). Of these cases, 553 (84%) were profiled as PAM50 basal-like whereas 105 (16%) were PAM50 non-basal. Non-basal subtype was the most significant predictor for capecitabine benefit [HRcapecitabine, 0.19; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.07-0.54; P < 0.001] when compared with PAM50 basal-like (HRcapecitabine, 0.9; 95% CI, 0.63-1.28; P = 0.55; Pinteraction<0.001, adjusted P value = 0.01). Analysis of biological processes related to PAM50 non-basal subtype revealed its enrichment for mast cells, extracellular matrix, angiogenesis, and features of mesenchymal stem-like TNBC subtype.

CONCLUSIONS

In this prespecified correlative analysis of the GEICAM/CIBOMA trial, PAM50 non-basal status identified patients with early-stage TNBC most likely to benefit from capecitabine.

Addition of Capecitabine to Adjuvant Chemotherapy May be the Most Effective Strategy for Patients With Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Network Meta-Analysis of 9 Randomized Controlled Trials

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Previous studies determined the therapeutic effects of capecitabine-based chemotherapy regimens on early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, the optimal strategy of capecitabine-based chemotherapy remains uncertain. We conducted this network meta-analysis to address this issue.

METHODS

We systematically searched PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Registry of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) to retrieve eligible studies published before September 2021. Two independent reviewers extracted information from eligible studies using a pre-designed data extraction sheet. The primary outcome included disease-free survival, and the second outcome showed overall survival and adverse events. Direct meta-analysis was performed using RevMan 5.4, and Bayesian network analysis was performed using R version 3.6.1 with the "gemtc" and "rjags" packages.

RESULTS

Nine studies involving 3661 TNBC patients met the selection criteria. The network meta-analysis suggested that the addition of capecitabine to adjuvant chemotherapy achieved a significantly longer disease-free (HR = 0.66, 95% CrI = 0.49 to 0.86) and overall survival time (HR = 0.60, 95% CrI = 0.43 to 0.83) than standard chemotherapy. All comparisons did not achieve statistical significance. The addition of capecitabine to adjuvant chemotherapy was the most effective treatment for improving disease-free (81.24%) and overall survival (78.46%) times, and the replacement of capecitabine to adjuvant chemotherapy was the safest regime.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on available evidence, capecitabine-based chemotherapy benefits TNBC patients, and the addition of capecitabine with adjuvant chemotherapy was the most effective regime. In contrast, the replacement of capecitabine to adjuvant chemotherapy was the safest regime. More studies of high quality and large scale are needed to confirm our findings.

Efficacy and Safety of Capecitabine for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Background

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is the most aggressive subtype of breast cancer with limited treatment options and poor prognosis. Capecitabine, as a novel adjuvant chemotherapy for TNBCs, remains controversial. Therefore, we conducted this meta-analysis to assess the efficacy and safety of capecitabine for early-stage TNBCs combined with neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy.

Methods

We searched Medline, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane databases updated on Mar 18, 2022 for relevant RCTs. In all, 11 RCTs with 5,175 patients were included. We used hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) to assess the differences between disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and adverse events.

Results

Our study demonstrated significance differences in both DFS and OS (DFS: HR=0.77; 95% CI 0.68–0.86; OS: HR=0.73, 95% CI 0.63–0.85). In subgroup analysis, the lower dosage group showed higher DFS (HR=0.79, 95% CI 0.69–0.91), higher frequency (HR=0.72, 95%CI 0.62–0.83), and adjuvant chemotherapy (HR=0.74, 95% CI 0.65–0.84). However, capecitabine was also associated with a higher risk of diarrhea (OR=3.10, 95% CI 2.32–4.15), hand–foot syndrome (OR=25.79, 95% CI 15.32–43.42), and leukopenia (OR=2.08, 95% CI 1.13–3.84).

Conclusion

The addition of capecitabine to early-stage TNBC patients receiving standard adjuvant chemotherapy showed significant DFS and OS improvement with tolerable adverse events. The lower dosage and higher frequency of capecitabine combined with adjuvant chemotherapy demonstrated a better survival outcome.

Is the benefit of using adjuvant capecitabine in patients with residual triple-negative breast cancer related to pathological response to neoadjuvant chemotherapy?

BACKGROUND

Triple-negative-breast-cancer (TNBC) has a poor prognosis if pathologic complete response (pCR) cannot be achieved after receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC). The group of patients that benefit most from adjuvant capecitabine remains unclear.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

We collected data from 218 consecutive patients who had previously received NAC and operated for TNBC from eight cancer centers. Data of 160 patients without PCR was included in the statistical analysis. Pathologic response to NAC was defined into two groups as having good-pathologic response (MillerPayneGrading (MPG) IV-III) or poor-pathologic response (MPG I-II). The histopathological characteristics of patients were compared in regard to adjuvant capecitabine usage.

RESULTS

Univariate-analysis revealed that age, histological subtype, clinical stage, size of tumor, number of lymph-nodes, menopausal status, pathological T and N stage, were significantly different between two groups. In multivariate-analysis, menopausal status (p=0.043) and residual tumor size (p<0.001) were found to be independent prognostic factors for pathological response. The hazard ratio for disease recurrence and death in the poor responsive group with adjuvant capecitabin was 2.94 (95% confidence interval (CI), 1.21 to 7.10; p=0.016) and 4.080 (95% CI, 1.22 to 13.64; p=0.022) respectively. DFS (p=0.58) and OS (p=0.89) improvements with adjuvant capecitabine were not demonstrated in good response groups.

CONCLUSION

This multicenter study suggested that only the poor responsive group to NAC achieved benefit from adjuvant capecitabine. Postmenopausal status and residual tumor size were related to poor prognosis.

Adjuvant Capecitabine for Early Breast Cancer: 15-Year Overall Survival Results From a Randomized Trial

PURPOSE

Few data are available regarding the influence of adjuvant capecitabine on long-term survival of patients with early breast cancer.

METHODS

The Finland Capecitabine Trial (FinXX) is a randomized, open-label, multicenter trial that evaluates integration of capecitabine to an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen containing a taxane and an anthracycline for the treatment of early breast cancer. Between January 27, 2004, and May 29, 2007, 1,500 patients with axillary node-positive or high-risk node-negative early breast cancer were accrued. The patients were randomly allocated to either TX-CEX, consisting of three cycles of docetaxel (T) plus capecitabine (X) followed by three cycles of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and capecitabine (CEX, 753 patients), or to T-CEF, consisting of three cycles of docetaxel followed by three cycles of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil (CEF, 747 patients). We performed a protocol-scheduled analysis of overall survival on the basis of approximately 15-year follow-up of the patients.

RESULTS

The data collection was locked on December 31, 2020. By this date, the median follow-up time of the patients alive was 15.3 years (interquartile range, 14.5-16.1 years) in the TX-CEX group and 15.4 years (interquartile range, 14.8-16.0 years) in the T-CEF group. Patients assigned to TX-CEX survived longer than those assigned to T-CEF (hazard ratio 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66 to 0.99; P = .037). The 15-year survival rate was 77.6% in the TX-CEX group and 73.3% in the T-CEF group. In exploratory subgroup analyses, patients with estrogen receptor-negative cancer and those with triple-negative cancer treated with TX-CEX tended to live longer than those treated with T-CEF.

CONCLUSION

Addition of capecitabine to a chemotherapy regimen that contained docetaxel, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide prolonged the survival of patients with early breast cancer.

Effects of capecitabine as part of neo-/adjuvant chemotherapy - A meta-analysis of individual breast cancer patient data from 13 randomised trials including 15,993 patients

BACKGROUND

Despite the large number of patients with early breast cancer (EBC) who have been treated with capecitabine in randomised trials, no individual patient data meta-analysis has been conducted. The primary objective was to examine the effect of capecitabine on disease-free survival (DFS), and the secondary objectives were to analyse distant DFS (DDFS), overall survival (OS), pathological complete response (for neoadjuvant studies) and the interaction between capecitabine-related toxicity and treatment effect.

METHODS

www.

CLINICALTRIALS

gov and www.pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov were searched using the following criteria: use of capecitabine for EBC as adjuvant or neoadjuvant therapy; multicentre randomised trial with >100 patients; recruitment completed, and outcomes available. Required data were available for 13 trials.

RESULTS

Individual data from 15,993 patients were collected. Cox regression analyses of all included patients revealed that the addition of capecitabine did not alter DFS significantly compared with treatment without capecitabine (hazard ratio [HR] 0.952; 95% CI 0.895-1.012; P value = 0.115). There was also no effect on DFS in the subset of studies where capecitabine was given instead of another drug (HR 1.035; 95% CI 0.945-1.134; P = 0.455). However, capecitabine administered in addition to the standard systemic treatment improved DFS (HR 0.888; 95% CI 0.817-0.965; P = 0.005). An OS improvement was observed in the entire cohort (HR 0.892; 95% CI 0.824-0.965, P = 0.005) and in the subset of capecitabine addition (HR 0.837; 95% CI 0.751, 0.933, P = 0.001). Subgroup analyses revealed that triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) patients benefitted from treatment with capecitabine overall and in addition to other systemic treatments in terms of DFS and OS.

CONCLUSION

Capecitabine was able to improve DFS and OS in patients with TNBC and in all patients with EBC when administered in addition to systemic treatment.

Additional capecitabine use in early-stage triple negative breast cancer patients receiving standard chemotherapy: a new era? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Background

The efficiency of capecitabine has been proven in early-stage triple negative breast cancer (eTNBC) with residue invasive tumor (non-pCR) after standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT). However, for those unselected eTNBC patients without screening from NACT (i.e., newly diagnosed eTNBC patients undergoing breast surgery followed by adjuvant systemic therapy), the value of capecitabine has still remains unclear. We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to evaluate whether additional capecitabine in eTNBC patients could improve clinical outcomes.

Methods

Seven RCTs (USO 01062, FinXX, GEICAM/2003, CREATE-X, CIBOMA/2004, CBCSG-010 and SYSUCC-001) were identified in online databases until December 2020 and included in the meta-analysis. We extracted the survival data including disease/relapse-free survival (DFS/RFS) and overall survival (OS), and utilized the STATA software to calculate the summarized hazard ratios (HRs) and 95% confidence intervals (95%CIs).

Results

A total of 3329 eTNBC patients were enrolled in this meta-analysis, with 1640 receiving standard neo−/adjuvant chemo-regimes alone, and the other 1689 receiving an additional capecitabine use, respectively. Both DFS and OS were significantly improved with the addition of capecitabine, and the benefits remained consistent in those unselected eTNBC patients without screening from NACT. Subgroup analysis further proved that this improvement in DFS was significant in both nodal negative and positive patients. Similar benefits are also found across menopausal status (both pre- and post-menopause). Regarding toxicity, the hand-foot syndrome and neutropenia are the most common capecitabine related adverse events, and are mostly tolerable.

Conclusions

The present meta-analysis of RCTs demonstrates for the first time that adding capecitabine to standard chemo-regimens could improve both DFS and OS in unselected eTNBC patients, and this benefit remains consistent regardless of nodal status and menopausal status, which may lead eTNBC therapy into a new era.

Expanding the Clinical Use of CDK4/6 Inhibitors in the Treatment of Hormone Receptor-Positive, HER2-Negative Breast Cancer from Metastatic Setting to Adjuvant Setting

More than two-thirds of patients with breast cancer present with hormone receptor (HR)-positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-negative disease at their initial diagnosis. HR-positive breast cancer’s growth depends on Cyclin D1, a direct transcriptional target of estrogen receptors (ER). The recent introduction of cyclin-dependent kinase 4 and 6 (CDK4/6) inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib, and abemaciclib) has revolutionized the treatment of metastatic HR-positive, HER2-negative breast cancer in both endocrine-sensitive and endocrine-resistant settings and in both pre-and post-menopausal women. Multiple large randomized clinical trials had demonstrated improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and, more recently, in overall survival (OS). Adjuvant endocrine therapy (ET) significantly reduces the risk of recurrence and death among patients with HR-positive early-stage breast cancer (EBC). However, up to 20% of these patients will experience local, regional or distal recurrences in the first ten years. Such resistance to ET motivated researchers to try CDK4/6 inhibitors in EBC, both in adjuvant and neoadjuvant settings. While many clinical trials are still ongoing, at least one study and two meta-analyses had shown beneficial results, based on which the US Food and Drug Administration had recently approved the use of one of these agents, abemaciclib, in combination with ET for the adjuvant therapy of patients with high-risk EBC. In this paper, we review the recently published and ongoing landmark clinical trials attempting to expand the use of CDK4/6 inhibitors, in combination with ET, in the adjuvant setting of EBC.

Radiomics features based on automatic segmented MRI images: Prognostic biomarkers for triple-negative breast cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy

PURPOSE

To establish radiomics prediction models based on automatic segmented magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for predicting the systemic recurrence of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) in patients after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A total of 147 patients with TNBC who underwent NAC between January 2009 and December 2018 were enrolled in this study. Clinicopathologic data were collected, and the differences between the recurrent and nonrecurrent patients were analyzed by univariate and multivariate analyses. Patients were randomly divided into training and testing sets. The training set consisted of 104 patients (recurrence: 22, nonrecurrence: 82), and the testing set consisted of 43 patients (recurrence: 9, nonrecurrence: 34). To establish the radiomics prediction model, we used a deep learning segmentation model to automatically segment tumor areas on dynamiccontrast-enhanced-MRI images of pre- and post-NAC magnetic resonance examinations. Radiomics features were then extracted from the tumor areas. Three MRI radiomics models were developed in the training set: a radiomics model based on pre-NAC MRI features (model 1), a radiomics model based on post-NAC MRI features (model 2), and a radiomics model based on both pre- and post-NAC MRI features (model 3). A clinical model for predicting systemic recurrence was built in the training set using independent clinical prediction factors. Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis was used to evaluate the performance of the radiomics and clinical models.

RESULTS

The clinical model yielded areas under the curve (AUCs) of 0.747 in the training set and 0.737 in the testing set in terms of predicting systemic recurrence. Models 1, 2, and 3 yielded AUCs of 0.879, 0.91, and 0.963 in the training set and 0.814, 0.802, and 0.933 in the testing set, respectively, in terms of predicting systemic recurrence. All of the radiomics models had achieved higher AUCs than the clinical model in the testing set. DeLong test was used to compare the AUCs between the models and indicated that the predictive performance of model 3 was better than the clinical model, and the difference was statistically significant (p < 0.05).

CONCLUSION

The radiomics models built based on the combination of pre- and post-NAC MRI features showed good performance in predicting whether patients with TNBC will have systemic recurrence within 3 years post-NAC. This can help us non-invasively identify which patients are at high risk of recurrence post-NAC, so that we can strengthen follow-up and treatment of these patients. Then the prognosis of these patients might be improved.

The Clinical Value of Chemotherapy Combined With Capecitabine in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer-A Meta-Analysis

Purpose: Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is the most dangerous subtype of breast cancer with high rates of metastasis and recurrence. The efficacy of capecitabine in chemotherapy for TNBC is still controversial. This study evaluated the efficacy and safety of capecitabine combining with standard, adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy for TNBC.

Methods: We systematically searched clinical studies through PubMed, Cochrane library, Embase, Wanfang Database, China Academic Journals (CNKI), and American Society of Clinical Oncology’s (ASCO) annual conference report. Studies were assessed for design and quality by the Cochrane risk of bias tool. A meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager to quantify the effect of capecitabine combined with standard, adjuvant or neoadjuvant chemotherapy on the disease-free survival (DFS) rate and overall survival (OS) rate of TNBC patients. Furthermore, safety analysis was performed to evaluate the adverse events.

Results: Twelve randomized controlled clinical trials involving totally 4854 TNBC patients were included, of which 2,214 patients received chemotherapy as control group, and 2,278 patients received capecitabine combining with chemotherapy. The results indicated that capecitabine could significantly improve the DFS [hazard ratio (HR) 0.80, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71–0.90, P = 0.0003] and OS (HR 0.83, 95% CI 0.74–0.93, P = 0.001). In subgroup analysis, the combination of capecitabine and cyclophosphamide exhibited a significant benefit in all outcomes (DFS HR 0.75, 95% CI 0.63–0.90, P = 0.002; OS HR 0.65, 95% CI 0.52–0.80, p < 0.0001). Additionally, defferent dose of capecitabine subgroup showed same significant effect on the results. Safety analysis showed that the addition of capecitabine was associated with a much higher risk of hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea and mucositis or stomatitis.

Conclusion: The results showed that adjuvant capecitabine could bring significant benefits on DFS and OS to unselected TNBC patients, the combination of capecitabine and cyclophosphamide could improve the survival rate of patients, although the addition of capecitabine could bring significant side effects such as hand foot syndrome (HFS) and diarrhea.

Additional adjuvant capecitabine in early breast cancer patients: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials

Aims: To assess the efficacy and safety of adjuvant capecitabine in early breast cancer patients. Methods: A literature search of databases was conducted to identify randomized controlled trials reporting the efficacy and toxicity of capecitabine as adjuvant therapy in early breast cancer patients. Results: Six studies were eligible and included a total of 6941 patients. Disease-free survival (hazard ratio = 0.79; 95% CI = 0.71-0.88; p < 0.0001) was significantly improved with additional capecitabine, whereas improvement in overall survival (OS) was not significant. The more pronounced benefits in both disease-free survival and OS were observed among triple-negative breast cancer patients. Conclusion: Additional capecitabine in the adjuvant setting conferred substantial disease-free survival benefit and a tendency toward improved OS. Triple-negative breast cancer patients can benefit from capecitabine irrespective of the administration sequence. Capecitabine may be considered a preferred additional treatment for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer patients, and sequential capecitabine can serve as an alternative choice for patients with poor tolerance.

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.

Updated Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) in Adjuvant Breast Cancer Clinical Trials: STEEP Version 2.0

PURPOSE

The Standardized Definitions for Efficacy End Points (STEEP) criteria, established in 2007, provide standardized definitions of adjuvant breast cancer clinical trial end points. Given the evolution of breast cancer clinical trials and improvements in outcomes, a panel of experts reviewed the STEEP criteria to determine whether modifications are needed.

METHODS

We conducted systematic searches of ClinicalTrials.gov for adjuvant systemic and local-regional therapy trials for breast cancer to investigate if the primary end points reported met STEEP criteria. On the basis of common STEEP deviations, we performed a series of simulations to evaluate the effect of excluding non-breast cancer deaths and new nonbreast primary cancers from the invasive disease-free survival end point.

RESULTS

Among 11 phase III breast cancer trials with primary efficacy end points, three had primary end points that followed STEEP criteria, four used STEEP definitions but not the corresponding end point names, and four used end points that were not included in the original STEEP manuscript. Simulation modeling demonstrated that inclusion of second nonbreast primary cancer can increase the probability of incorrect inferences, can decrease power to detect clinically relevant efficacy effects, and may mask differences in recurrence rates, especially when recurrence rates are low.

CONCLUSION

We recommend an additional end point, invasive breast cancer-free survival, which includes all invasive disease-free survival events except second nonbreast primary cancers. This end point should be considered for trials in which the toxicities of agents are well-known and where the risk of second primary cancer is small. Additionally, we provide end point recommendations for local therapy trials, low-risk populations, noninferiority trials, and trials incorporating patient-reported outcomes.

Prospective cohort study of febrile neutropenia in breast cancer patients administered with neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapies: CSPOR-BC FN study

Background

As Asians are more vulnerable to febrile neutropenia (FN) than Caucasians, evaluations of FN incidence and risk factors in Asians are important for the appropriate use of primary pegfilgrastim (PEG-G).

Patients and methods

Japanese breast cancer patients receiving standard adjuvant chemotherapies were prospectively enrolled in multicenter institutions from August 2015 to July 2017. FN was evaluated from 2 treatment policies: true FN (T-FN): ≥37.5 °C, grade 4 neutropenia, mandatory hospital visit (visiting); surrogate FN (S-FN): ≥37.5 °C, oral antibiotic, no mandatory visit (non-visiting). PEG-G was used at the physicians’ discretion. The primary endpoint was FN incidence during all cycles. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to identify T-FN risk factors.

Results

Of 1005 enrolled patients, 980 women treated with FEC, E(A)C, and TC were analyzed. The FN incidence proportions in all patients were 22.5%, 27.5%, and 33.9% for FEC, E(A)C, and TC, respectively. Those of T-FN were 27.7%, 22.4%, and 36.6%; those of S-FN were 17.3%, 32.4%, and 31.5% with more frequent primary PEG-G usage. The relative dose intensity (RDI) of the 3 regimens was ≥0.85 in both groups. In the analysis of risk factors, TC (odds ratio = 2.67), age ≥ 65 years (2.24), and pretreatment absolute neutrophil count (ANC)/1000 μl (0.8) remained significant.

Conclusions

FN incidences were above 20% in the 3 regimens, with TC showing the highest. RDI was maintained at a high level in both visiting and non-visiting groups. Patient-related risk factors were age and pretreatment ANC.

•

This study compared febrile neutropenia (FN) incidences of 3 breast cancer regimens.

•

FN incidences were >20% in the 3 regimens (FEC, E(A)C; TC); TC showed the highest.

•

The relative dose intensities in visiting and non-visiting groups were at high level.

•

Age and pretreatment absolute neutrophil count were found as significant FN factors.

The role of capecitabine-based neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

The role of capecitabine in neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) is highly controversial. Our meta-analysis was designed to further elucidate the effects of capecitabine on survival in early-stage TNBC patients and its safety.

METHODS

PubMed, Embase, and papers presented at several main conferences were searched up to December 19, 2019, to investigate capecitabine-based versus capecitabine-free neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy in TNBC patients. Heterogeneity was assessed using I2 test, combined with hazard ratios (HRs) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CI) computed for disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), and over grade 3 adverse events (AEs).

RESULTS

A total of 9 randomized clinical trials and 3842 TNBC patients were included. Overall, the combined capecitabine regimens in neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy showed significantly improved DFS (HR = 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.86; P < 0.001) and OS (HR = 0.63; 95% CI, 0.53-0.77; P < 0.001). In subgroup analysis, there were improvements in DFS in the groups with addition of capecitabine (HR = 0.64; 95% CI, 0.53-0.78; P < 0.001), adjuvant chemotherapy (HR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.63-0.85; P < 0.001), and lymph node positivity (HR = 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44-0.86; P = 0.005). Capecitabine regimens were related to higher risks of diarrhea (OR = 2.88, 95% CI 2.23-3.74, P < 0.001), stomatitis (OR = 2.01, 95% CI 1.53-2.64, P < 0.001) and hand-foot syndrome (OR = 8.67, 95% CI 6.70-11.22, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

This meta-analysis showed that neoadjuvant and adjuvant chemotherapy combined with capecitabine significantly improved both DFS and OS in early-stage TNBC patients with tolerable AEs. There were benefits to DFS in the groups with the addition of capecitabine, adjuvant chemotherapy, and lymph node positivity.

Effect of Capecitabine Maintenance Therapy Using Lower Dosage and Higher Frequency vs Observation on Disease-Free Survival Among Patients With Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Who Had Received Standard Treatment: The SYSUCC-001 Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE

Among all subtypes of breast cancer, triple-negative breast cancer has a relatively high relapse rate and poor outcome after standard treatment. Effective strategies to reduce the risk of relapse and death are needed.

OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy and adverse effects of low-dose capecitabine maintenance after standard adjuvant chemotherapy in early-stage triple-negative breast cancer.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS

Randomized clinical trial conducted at 13 academic centers and clinical sites in China from April 2010 to December 2016 and final date of follow-up was April 30, 2020. Patients (n = 443) had early-stage triple-negative breast cancer and had completed standard adjuvant chemotherapy.

INTERVENTIONS

Eligible patients were randomized 1:1 to receive capecitabine (n = 222) at a dose of 650 mg/m2 twice a day by mouth for 1 year without interruption or to observation (n = 221) after completion of standard adjuvant chemotherapy.

MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES

The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included distant disease-free survival, overall survival, locoregional recurrence-free survival, and adverse events.

RESULTS

Among 443 women who were randomized, 434 were included in the full analysis set (mean [SD] age, 46 [9.9] years; T1/T2 stage, 93.1%; node-negative, 61.8%) (98.0% completed the trial). After a median follow-up of 61 months (interquartile range, 44-82), 94 events were observed, including 38 events (37 recurrences and 32 deaths) in the capecitabine group and 56 events (56 recurrences and 40 deaths) in the observation group. The estimated 5-year disease-free survival was 82.8% in the capecitabine group and 73.0% in the observation group (hazard ratio [HR] for risk of recurrence or death, 0.64 [95% CI, 0.42-0.95]; P = .03). In the capecitabine group vs the observation group, the estimated 5-year distant disease-free survival was 85.8% vs 75.8% (HR for risk of distant metastasis or death, 0.60 [95% CI, 0.38-0.92]; P = .02), the estimated 5-year overall survival was 85.5% vs 81.3% (HR for risk of death, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.47-1.19]; P = .22), and the estimated 5-year locoregional recurrence-free survival was 85.0% vs 80.8% (HR for risk of locoregional recurrence or death, 0.72 [95% CI, 0.46-1.13]; P = .15). The most common capecitabine-related adverse event was hand-foot syndrome (45.2%), with 7.7% of patients experiencing a grade 3 event.

CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE

Among women with early-stage triple-negative breast cancer who received standard adjuvant treatment, low-dose capecitabine maintenance therapy for 1 year, compared with observation, resulted in significantly improved 5-year disease-free survival.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT01112826.

The adjuvant use of capecitabine for residual disease following pre-operative chemotherapy for breast cancer: Challenges applying CREATE-X to a US population

INTRODUCTION

The CREATE-X study, conducted in Japan and South Korea, established capecitabine as an adjuvant treatment option for patients with triple negative breast cancer (TNBC) who have residual disease (RD) following neoadjuvant anthracycline or taxane-based chemotherapy. However, there are no reports on the tolerability and outcomes of adjuvant capecitabine in the US setting following publication of the CREATE-X data.

METHODS

We retrospectively collected treatment and tolerability data from the medical records of the first 23 TNBC patients who received adjuvant capecitabine for RD post neoadjuvant chemotherapy at our institution. Disease-free survival was assessed using the Kaplan-Meier method.

RESULTS

The median starting dosage of capecitabine was 1871 mg/m²/day, most commonly divided into two daily doses on days 1-14 of each 21 day cycle. 34.8% of patients completed the treatment as prescribed. Side effects associated with treatment were common with 69.6% of patients experiencing hand-foot syndrome, 39.1% of patients experiencing diarrhea, and 13.0% of patients requiring hospitalization for side effects. Of 23 patients treated with adjuvant capecitabine, 34.8% completed the planned dose, 30.4% completed with dose reduction, and 34.8% discontinued early. At a median follow-up time of 14 months, the median disease-free survival was 22 months, with 30.4% of patients experiencing recurrence.

CONCLUSION

Tolerability was poor overall compared to the CREATE-X cohort. Administering adjuvant capecitabine for TNBC patients with residual disease in the United States is challenging given differences in tolerability. More research is needed to understand how poor tolerability will affect the efficacy of this approach in the US population.

Cancer progression and the invisible phase of metastatic colonization

Metastatic dissemination occurs very early in the malignant progression of a cancer but the clinical manifestation of metastases often takes years. In recent decades, 5-year survival of patients with many solid cancers has increased due to earlier detection, local disease control and adjuvant therapies. As a consequence, we are confronted with an increase in late relapses as more antiproliferative cancer therapies prolong disease courses, raising questions about how cancer cells survive, evolve or stop growing and finally expand during periods of clinical latency. I argue here that the understanding of early metastasis formation, particularly of the currently invisible phase of metastatic colonization, will be essential for the next stage in adjuvant therapy development that reliably prevents metachronous metastasis.

Effect of dose-dense adjuvant chemotherapy in hormone receptor positive/HER2-negative early breast cancer patients according to immunohistochemically defined luminal subtype: an exploratory analysis of the GIM2 trial

BACKGROUND

Luminal A-like and luminal B-like subtypes have different sensitivity to (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy, but their role in predicting dose-dense (DD) efficacy in the high-risk setting is unknown. In this exploratory analysis of the Gruppo Italiano Mammella 2 (GIM2) trial, we investigated DD efficacy according to luminal-like subtypes.

METHODS

Patients with node-positive early breast cancer were randomised to receive either DD or standard-interval (SI) anthracycline-based chemotherapy followed by paclitaxel. In our analysis, luminal A-like cohort was identified as having a Ki67 < 20% and a progesterone receptor (PgR) ≥ 20%; luminal B-like cohort as having a Ki67 ≥ 20% and/or a PgR < 20%.

RESULTS

Out of 2003 patients enrolled in the GIM2 trial, 412 had luminal A-like and 638 luminal B-like breast cancer. After a median follow-up of 7.9 years, disease-free survival (DFS) was 80.8% (95% confidence interval [CI] 76.4-84.5) and 70.5% (66.5-74.2) in luminal A-like and luminal B-like cohorts; overall survival (OS) was 91.6% (88.2-94.1) and 85.1% (81.7-87.9), respectively. We found no significant interaction between treatment and luminal subtype (interaction p = 0.603 and 0.535 for DFS and OS, respectively). When DD efficacy was investigated separately in each cohort, luminal-B like cohort appeared to benefit more from the DD schedule both in terms of DFS (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.72 [95% CI 0.54-0.96]) and OS (unadjusted HR 0.61 [95% CI 0.40-0.94]), compared with the luminal A-like cohort (unadjusted HR for DFS 0.89 [95% CI 0.59-1.33]; unadjusted HR for OS 0.83 [95% CI 0.45-1.54]).

CONCLUSIONS

No significant interaction between luminal-like subtype and treatment was observed. Patients in the luminal B-like cohort seemed to benefit more from DD schedule.

Quality of adverse event reporting in phase III randomized controlled trials of breast and colorectal cancer: A systematic review

Background

Clinical trial reports often emphasize efficacy over harms, leading to misinterpretation of the risk‐to‐benefit ratio of new therapies. Clear and sufficiently detailed reporting of methods and results is especially important in the abstracts of trial reports, as readers often base their assessment of a trial on such information. In this study, we evaluated the quality of adverse event (AE) reporting and abstract quality in phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of systemic therapies in breast and colorectal cancer.

Methods

Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Database of RCTs, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched from November 2005 to September 2018. Phase III RCTs evaluating systemic therapies in breast or colorectal cancer were included. Each article was independently reviewed by two investigators using a standardized data extraction form based on guidelines developed by the Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) group. Descriptive statistics, bivariate analysis, and multivariable linear regression were used to analyze data. All statistical tests were two‐sided.

Results

Of 166 RCTs identified, 99.4% reported harms in the manuscript body, and 59.6% reported harms in the abstract. Reporting was restricted to severe harms in 15.6% of RCTs. Statistical comparison of AE rates went unreported in 59.0% of studies. Information regarding AEs leading to dose reductions, treatment discontinuations, or study withdrawals went unreported in 59.3%, 18.7%, and 86.8% of studies, respectively. Recently published RCTs (P = .009) and those sponsored at least partially by for‐profit companies (P = .003) had higher abstract quality scores.

Conclusions

Breast and colorectal cancer phase III RCTs inadequately report CONSORT‐compliant AE data. Improved guideline adherence and abstract reporting is required to properly weigh benefits and harms of new oncologic therapies.

Systematic Review Registration Number

CRD42019140673.

Capecitabine + Epirubicin + Cyclophosphamide Combination Therapy (CEX Therapy) as Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy for HER-2-Negative Breast Cancer: A Retrospective, Single-Center Study

BACKGROUND

We modified and administered capecitabine + epirubicin + cyclophosphamide combination therapy (CEX) as neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) for HER-2-negative breast cancer and retrospectively analyzed its effectiveness and tolerability at our center.

METHODS

The inclusion criteria were presence of breast cancer negative for HER-2 and positive lymph node metastasis, or negative lymph node metastasis when tumor diameter was 20 mm or greater without distant metastasis. Additional inclusion criteria were a performance status of 0 or 1, an EF >60%, and an age of 75 years or less. Clinical outcomes were evaluated after 4 courses of epirubicin 80 mg/m2, cyclophosphamide 500 mg/m2 (administered every 3 weeks), and capecitabine 1,500 mg/m2 (administered for 2 weeks and withdrawn for 1 week).

RESULTS

A clinical benefit was noted in all 18 patients who received CEX as neoadjuvant chemotherapy during the period from 2009 through 2013. The clinical response rate was 83.3% (15/18), and the clinical complete response rate was 50%. Aesthetic outcomes of breast-conserving surgery were positive in all patients. Among patients with satisfactory outcomes, 33.3% had a pathologic complete response (triple-negative: 6, luminal: 0) and 68.8% were n0 (triple-negative: 8, luminal: 3). All patients with a pathologic complete response are presently alive, free of recurrence, and currently undergoing follow-up. Adverse events were classified as grade 2 or lower in all patients.

CONCLUSIONS

CEX therapy administered as neoadjuvant chemotherapy could be useful for individualized treatment. In particular, this regimen was effective for triple-negative breast cancer.

Adjuvant Capecitabine With Docetaxel and Cyclophosphamide Plus Epirubicin for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (CBCSG010): An Open-Label, Randomized, Multicenter, Phase III Trial

PURPOSE

Standard adjuvant chemotherapy for triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) includes a taxane and an anthracycline. Concomitant capecitabine may be beneficial, but robust data to support this are lacking. The efficacy and safety of the addition of capecitabine into the TNBC adjuvant treatment regimen was evaluated.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

This randomized, open-label, phase III trial was conducted in China. Eligible female patients with early TNBC after definitive surgery were randomly assigned (1:1) to either capecitabine (3 cycles of capecitabine and docetaxel followed by 3 cycles of capecitabine, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide) or control treatment (3 cycles of docetaxel followed by 3 cycles of fluorouracil, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide). Randomization was centralized without stratification. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS).

RESULTS

Between June 2012 and December 2013, 636 patients with TNBC were screened, and 585 were randomly assigned to treatment (control, 288; capecitabine, 297). Median follow-up was 67 months. The 5-year DFS rate was higher for capecitabine than for control treatment (86.3% v 80.4%; hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.99; P = .044). Five-year overall survival rates were numerically higher but not significantly improved (capecitabine, 93.3%; control, 90.7%). Overall, 39.1% of patients had capecitabine dose reductions, and 8.4% reported grade ≥ 3 hand-foot syndrome. The most common grade ≥ 3 hematologic toxicities were neutropenia (capecitabine, 136 [45.8%]; control, 118 [41.0%]) and febrile neutropenia (capecitabine, 50 [16.8%]; control, 46 [16.0%]). Safety data were similar to the known capecitabine safety profile and generally comparable between arms.

CONCLUSION

Capecitabine when added to 3 cycles of docetaxel followed by 3 cycles of a 3-drug anthracycline combination containing capecitabine instead of fluorouracil significantly improved DFS in TNBC without new safety concerns.

5-Fluorouracil degradation rate as a predictive biomarker of toxicity in breast cancer patients treated with capecitabine

Capecitabine is an oral prodrug of 5-fluorouracil with a relevant role in the treatment of breast cancer. Severe and unexpected toxicities related to capecitabine are not rare, and the identification of biomarkers is challenging. We evaluate the relationship between dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase, thymidylate synthase enhancer region and methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase polymorphisms, 5-fluorouracil degradation rate and the onset of G3–4 toxicities in breast cancer patients. Genetic polymorphisms and the 5-fluorouracil degradation rate of breast cancer patients treated with capecitabine were retrospectively studied. Genetic markers and the 5-fluorouracil degradation rate were correlated with the reported toxicities. Thirty-seven patients with a median age of 58 years old treated with capecitabine for stages II–IV breast cancer were included in this study. Overall, 34 (91.9%) patients suffered from at least an episode of any grade toxicity while nine patients had G3–4 toxicity. Homozygous methylenetetrahydrofolate reductase 677TT was found to be significantly related to haematological toxicity (OR = 6.5 [95% IC 1.1–37.5], P = 0.04). Three patients had a degradation rate less than 0.86 ng/mL/106 cells/min and three patients greater than 2.1 ng/mL/106 cells/min. At a univariate logistic regression analysis, an altered value of 5-fluorouracil degradation rate (values < 0.86 or >2.10 ng/mL/106 cells/min) increased the risk of G3–4 adverse events (OR = 10.40 [95% IC: 1.48–7.99], P = 0.02). A multivariate logistic regression analysis, adjusted for age, comorbidity and CAPE-regimen, confirmed the role of 5-fluorouracil degradation rate as a predictor of G3–4 toxicity occurrence (OR = 10.9 [95% IC 1.2–96.2], P = 0.03). The pre-treatment evaluation of 5-fluorouracil degradation rate allows to identify breast cancer patients at high risk for severe 5-FU toxicity.

Standard Anthracycline Based Versus Docetaxel-Capecitabine in Early High Clinical and/or Genomic Risk Breast Cancer in the EORTC 10041/BIG 3-04 MINDACT Phase III Trial

PURPOSE

MINDACT demonstrated that 46% of patients with early breast cancer at high clinical but low genomic risk on the basis of MammaPrint may safely avoid adjuvant chemotherapy. A second random assignment (R-C) compared docetaxel-capecitabine with an anthracycline-based regimen.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

R-C randomly assigned patients 1:1 between standard anthracycline-based regimens, with or without taxanes (control) and experimental docetaxel 75 mg/m² intravenously plus oral capecitabine 825 mg/m² two times per day for 14 days (DC) every 3 weeks for 6 cycles. The primary end point was disease-free survival (DFS). Secondary end points included overall survival and safety.

RESULTS

Of 2,832 patients, 1,301 (45%) were randomly assigned, and 97% complied with R-C assignment. In the control arm, 29.6% only received taxanes (0.5% of N0 patients). DFS events (n = 148) were much less than required (n = 422) as a result of a lower-than-expected accrual and event rate. At 5 years of median follow-up, DFS was not different between DC (n = 652) and control (n = 649; 90.7% [95% CI, 88% to 92.8%] v 88.8% [95% CI, 85.9% to 91.1%]; hazard ratio [HR], 0.83 [95% CI, 0.60 to 1.15]; P = .26). Overall survival (HR, 0.91 [95% CI, 0.54 to 1.53]) and DFS in the clinical high and genomic high-risk subgroup (86.1% v 88.1%; HR, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.58 to 1.21]) were similar in both arms. DC led to more grade 1 neuropathy (27.1% v 11.2%) and more grade 2 hand/foot syndrome (28.5% v 3.3%) and diarrhea (13.7% v 5.8%). Serious cardiac events occurred in 9 patients (control, n = 4; DC, n = 5). Fifty-three patients developed second cancers (control, n = 32; DC, n = 21; leukemia: 2 v 1). Five treatment-related deaths occurred (control, 2 [0.3%]; DC, 3 [0.5%]).

CONCLUSION

Although underpowered, this second randomization in MINDACT did not show any improvement in outcome or safety with the use of DC compared with anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

Predictive Biomarkers for Adjuvant Capecitabine Benefit in Early-Stage Triple-Negative Breast Cancer in the FinXX Clinical Trial

PURPOSE

Recent studies have demonstrated a benefit of adjuvant capecitabine in early breast cancer, particularly in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). However, TNBC is heterogeneous and more precise predictive biomarkers are needed.

EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN

Tumor tissues collected from TNBC patients in the FinXX trial, randomized to adjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy with or without capecitabine, were analyzed using a 770-gene panel targeting multiple biological mechanisms and additional 30-custom genes related to capecitabine metabolism. Hypothesis-generating exploratory analyses were performed to assess biomarker expression in relation to treatment effect using the Cox regression model and interaction tests adjusted for multiplicity.

RESULTS

One hundred eleven TNBC samples were evaluable (57 without capecitabine and 54 with capecitabine). The median follow-up was 10.2 years. Multivariate analysis showed significant improvement in recurrence-free survival (RFS) favoring capecitabine in four biologically important genes and metagenes, including cytotoxic cells [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.38; 95% confidence intervals (CI), 0.16-0.86, P-interaction = 0.01], endothelial (HR = 0.67; 95% CI, 0.20-2.22, P-interaction = 0.02), mast cells (HR = 0.78; 95% CI, 0.49-1.27, P-interaction = 0.04), and PDL2 (HR = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.12-0.81, P-interaction = 0.03). Furthermore, we identified 38 single genes that were significantly associated with capecitabine benefit, and these were dominated by immune response pathway and enzymes involved in activating capecitabine to fluorouracil, including TYMP. However, these results were not significant when adjusted for multiple testing.

CONCLUSIONS

Genes and metagenes related to antitumor immunity, immune response, and capecitabine activation could identify TNBC patients who are more likely to benefit from adjuvant capecitabine. Given the reduced power to observe significant findings when correcting for multiplicity, our findings provide the basis for future hypothesis-testing validation studies on larger clinical trials.

Adjuvant addition of capecitabine to early-stage triple-negative breast cancer patients receiving standard chemotherapy: a meta-analysis

PURPOSE

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) pertains to a breast cancer subtype that has the highest metastatic and recurrence rates. The effectiveness of capecitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy for TNBC has remained unclear. This study conducted a meta-analysis of the efficacy of capecitabine as adjuvant chemotherapy for early-stage TNBC treated with taxane-/anthracycline-based chemotherapy.

METHODS

We identified relevant research reports in online databases until May 2019. We finally included seven randomized clinical trials to perform this meta-analysis. Altogether, the seven trials enrolled 3151 early-stage TNBC patients, with 1552 receiving standard (neo)adjuvant chemotherapy regimens and 1599 receiving addition of capecitabine in the adjuvant settings besides standard regimens.

RESULTS

A meta-analysis of the seven trials revealed a significant increase in disease-free survival (DFS) with the addition of capecitabine (Hazard ratio (HR) = 0.77, 95% CI 0.66-0.90). This improvement in DFS was significant both in trials conducted in America-Europe and in Asia. In trials involving six to eight cycles of capecitabine addition, we observed a significant improvement in DFS. Furthermore, in the meta-analysis of six trials, we detected a significant increase in overall survival (OS) favoring capecitabine (HR = 0.69, 95% CI 0.56-0.85).

CONCLUSIONS

Adjuvant addition of capecitabine to early-stage TNBC patients receiving standard chemotherapy showed significant DFS and OS improvement. Future studies involving the selection of patients that may have the highest survival benefit from adding capecitabine are warranted.

Phase III Trial of Adjuvant Capecitabine After Standard Neo-/Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Patients With Early Triple-Negative Breast Cancer (GEICAM/2003-11_CIBOMA/2004-01)

PURPOSE

Operable triple-negative breast cancers (TNBCs) have a higher risk of relapse than non-TNBCs with standard therapy. The GEICAM/2003-11_CIBOMA/2004-01 trial explored extended adjuvant capecitabine after completion of standard chemotherapy in patients with early TNBC.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Eligible patients were those with operable, node-positive—or node negative with tumor 1 cm or greater—TNBC, with prior anthracycline- and/or taxane-containing chemotherapy. After central confirmation of TNBC status by immunohistochemistry, patients were randomly assigned to either capecitabine or observation. Stratification factors included institution, prior taxane-based therapy, involved axillary lymph nodes, and centrally determined phenotype (basal v nonbasal, according to cytokeratins 5/6 and/or epidermal growth factor receptor positivity by immunohistochemistry). The primary objective was to compare disease-free survival (DFS) between both arms.

RESULTS

Eight hundred seventy-six patients were randomly assigned to capecitabine (n = 448) or observation (n = 428). Median age was 49 years, 55.9% were lymph node negative, 73.9% had a basal phenotype, and 67.5% received previous anthracyclines plus taxanes. Median length of follow-up was 7.3 years. DFS was not significantly prolonged with capecitabine versus observation [hazard ratio (HR), 0.82; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.06; P = .136]. In a preplanned subgroup analysis, nonbasal patients seemed to derive benefit from the addition of capecitabine with a DFS HR of 0.53 versus 0.94 in those with basal phenotype (interaction test P = .0694) and an HR for overall survival of 0.42 versus 1.23 in basal phenotype (interaction test P = .0052). Tolerance of capecitabine was as expected, with 75.2% of patients completing the planned 8 cycles.

CONCLUSION

This study failed to show a statistically significant increase in DFS by adding extended capecitabine to standard chemotherapy in patients with early TNBC. In a preplanned subset analysis, patients with nonbasal phenotype seemed to obtain benefit with capecitabine, although this will require additional validation.

Prophylactic administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor in epirubicin and cyclophosphamide chemotherapy for Japanese breast cancer patients: a retrospective study

PURPOSE

Epirubicin and cyclophosphamide (EC) therapy, a major chemotherapy for patients with early-stage breast cancer, has a low risk (< 10%) of febrile neutropenia (FN). However, data used in reports on the incidence rate of FN were derived primarily from non-Asian populations. In this study, we investigated the FN incidence rate using EC therapy among Japanese patients with breast cancer and evaluated the significance of prophylactic administration of granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF).

METHODS

We evaluated medical records of patients with early-stage breast cancer who had been treated with EC therapy as neoadjuvant or adjuvant therapy between November 2014 and July 2018.

RESULTS

The incidence rate of FN was 23.9%. In patients who received G-CSF as primary prophylaxis, FN expression was completely suppressed. The incidence rate of severe leucopenia/neutropenia, emergency hospitalization, and the use of antimicrobial agents were low in patients receiving primary prophylaxis with G-CSF compared with those not receiving G-CSF (27.3% vs. 64.8%, 9.1% vs. 27.3%, and 27.3% vs. 71.6%, respectively). Furthermore, in all patients who received primary prophylaxis with G-CSF, a relative dose intensity > 85% using EC therapy was maintained.

CONCLUSION

The incidence of FN in EC therapy among Japanese patients was higher than expected, EC therapy appears to be a high-risk chemotherapy for FN, and prophylactic administration of G-CSF is recommended. Maintaining high therapeutic intensity is associated with a positive prognosis for patients with early breast cancer, and prophylactic administration of G-CSF is likely to be beneficial in treatment involving EC therapy.

Post-neoadjuvant treatment and the management of residual disease in breast cancer: state of the art and perspectives

Achieving a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant treatment is associated with improved prognosis in breast cancer. The CREATE-X trial demonstrated a significant survival improvement with capecitabine in patients with residual invasive disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy, and the KATHERINE trial showed a significant benefit of trastuzumab-emtansine (TDM1) in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-positive patients who did not achieve a pathologic complete response after neoadjuvant treatment, creating interesting alternatives of post-neoadjuvant treatments for high-risk patients. New agents are arising as therapeutic options for metastatic breast cancer such as the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitors and the immune-checkpoint inhibitors, but none has been incorporated into the post-neoadjuvant setting so far. Evolving techniques such as next-generation sequencing and gene expression profiles have improved our knowledge regarding the biology of residual disease, and also on the mechanisms involved in treatment resistance. The present manuscript reviews the current available strategies, the ongoing trials, the potential biomarker-guided approaches and the perspectives for the post-neoadjuvant treatment and the management of residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment in breast cancer.

Absolute benefit from adjuvant chemotherapy in contemporary clinical trials: A systemic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Many adjuvant breast cancer trials have observed smaller than anticipated differences between experimental and control groups. Accurate estimation of the absolute benefits of treatment is essential for the planning of clinical trials.

METHODS

We searched PubMed to identify contemporary randomized trials comparing different adjuvant chemotherapy regimens in breast cancer. The absolute difference in 5-year disease-free survival (DFS) and overall-survival between experimental and control groups were extracted, weighted by individual study sample size and pooled. Analyses were performed for estrogen receptor (ER) negative and ER-positive disease. Meta-regression explored the influence of patients and tumor characteristics and median follow-up on the benefit from treatment.

RESULTS

Analysis included 19 studies comprising 41,564 patients. Studies comparing chemotherapy regimens of different generations showed the largest difference in 5-year DFS (+7.4% for 3rd vs. 2nd generation and +5.9% for 2nd vs. 1st generation for ER-negative disease, and +2.3% for 3rd vs. 2nd generation and +1.8% for 2nd vs. 1st generation for ER-positive disease). Studies comparing chemotherapy regimens from the same generation showed smaller differences in DFS in both subgroups. Meta-regression showed that larger tumors and nodal involvement had significant greater magnitude of effect on 5-year DFS for ER-negative, but not ER-positive disease. Age and menopausal status had no effect in either subgroup.

CONCLUSIONS

Absolute differences between adjuvant chemotherapy regimens of the same generation are small even in ER-negative disease. Enrichment of trials for patients with poor clinical features results in larger magnitudes of benefit from treatment at 5 years in ER-negative, but not ER-positive disease.

Concurrent use of capecitabine with radiation therapy and survival in breast cancer (BC) after neoadjuvant chemotherapy

PURPOSE

Capecitabine has been studied as a radiosensitizer, and our study seeks to examine the association of concurrent capecitabine/radiation therapy (RT) on event-free- (EFS) and overall survival (OS) in women with breast cancer (BC) with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC).

METHODS/PATIENTS

In a retrospective study of women with BC who received adriamycin/taxane-based NAC from 2004-2016, we identified 21 women administered concurrent capecitabine/RT. To assess differences in survival, we selected a clinical control cohort (n = 57) based on criteria used to select patients for capecitabine/RT. We also created a matched cohort (2:1), matching on tumor subtype, pathological stage and age (< 50 or 50+ years). Differences in EFS, using STEEP criteria, and OS, using all-cause mortality, between those who received capecitabine/RT and controls were assessed.

RESULTS

Of the 21 women who received capecitabine/RT, median age was 52 years. The majority were pathologic stage III (n = 15) and hormone receptor-positive/HER2-negative BC (n = 20). In those receiving capecitabine/RT, there were 9 events, compared with 14 events in clinical and 10 events in matched controls. Capecitabine/RT was associated with worse OS in clinical (HR 3.83 95% CI 1.12-13.11, p = 0.03) and matched controls (HR 3.71 95% CI 1.04-13.18, p = 0.04), after adjusting for clinical size, pathological stage and lymphovascular invasion. Capecitabine/RT was also associated with a trend towards worse EFS in clinical (HR 2.41 95% CI 0.86-6.74, p = 0.09) and matched controls (HR 2.68 95% CI 0.91-7.90, p = 0.07) after adjustment.

CONCLUSION

Concurrent capecitabine/RT after NAC is associated with worse survival and should be carefully considered in BC.

Neoadjuvant Chemotherapy Considerations in Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

The optimal neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT) regimen in triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) has not been clearly defined. Achieving a pathologic complete response (pCR) provides important prognostic information, and, especially in TNBC, is considered a surrogate endpoint for event-free survival. Thus, many neoadjuvant studies in TNBC focus on this as a primary endpoint, and such information may be used for accelerated US Food and Drug Administration approval. Current controversies in the field include: (1) the role of platinum-based compounds; (2) the optimal chemotherapy backbone; and (3) the benefits of additional therapy after surgery. Conflicting results of 2 major studies adding carboplatin to NACT have highlighted the need to balance potential benefits to disease outcomes against increased toxicity. While the PROGECT study suggests efficacy of a nonanthracycline-containing regimen, this is observational data, and evidence in the form of a clinical trial remains to be seen. Data surrounding optimal taxane use support the use of nab-paclitaxel in place of paclitaxel in limited clinical situations. Although bevacizumab may increase pCR rates, this has not translated into survival benefit. Capecitabine shows promise in patients who have not achieved pCR after NACT. The neoadjuvant setting remains an important model for drug development. This review will focus on the most important and most current neoadjuvant trials in women with TNBC.

Evaluating the benefits and adverse effects of an enthracycline-taxane-capecitabine combined regimen in patients with early breast cancer

Capecitabine in addition to anthracycline-taxane based regimens for patients with early breast cancer (EBC) has been reported in previous clinical trials, but the reported efficacy of this regimen remained inconsistent. In order to clarify the survival benefit of this regimen, a meta-analysis was performed. The systematic literature search was conducted in PubMed, the Cochrane library and Google scholar. The hazard ratios (HRs) were used to evaluate the efficacy and adverse events. The result indicated that capecitabine combine with an anthracycline-taxane based regimen would significantly improve DFS (HR = 0.87, 95% CI 0.77-0.97) and OS (HR = 0.78, 95% CI 0.66-0.91) compared with the controls. In subgroup analysis, we found that capecitabine improved the DFS in hormone receptor negative (HR = 0.72, 95% CI 0.53-0.92) and triple negative (HR = 0.67, 95% CI 0.49-0.86) EBC patients. However, adding capecitabine might also increase the occurrence of some side-effects, such as hand-foot syndrome, stomatitis and diarrhea. Capecitabine combined with an anthracycline-taxane based regimen maybe effective and well-tolerated by patients with EBC, especially for triple negative breast cancer, and might be a good clinical choice.

Adjuvant Capecitabine in Combination With Docetaxel, Epirubicin, and Cyclophosphamide for Early Breast Cancer: The Randomized Clinical FinXX Trial

Importance

Capecitabine is not considered a standard agent in the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer. The results of this study suggest that addition of adjuvant capecitabine to a regimen that contains docetaxel, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide improves survival outcomes of patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC).

Objective

To investigate the effect of capecitabine on long-term survival outcomes of patients with early breast cancer, particularly in subgroups defined by cancer estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PR) content, and HER2 content (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2).

Design, Setting, and Participants

This is an exploratory analysis of the multicenter FinXX randomized clinical trial that accrued 1500 women in Finland and Sweden between January 27, 2004, and May 29, 2007. About half received 3 cycles of docetaxel followed by 3 cycles of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and fluorouracil (T+CEF), while the other half received 3 cycles of docetaxel plus capecitabine followed by 3 cycles of cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, and capecitabine (TX+CEX). Data analysis took place between January 27, 2004, and December 31, 2015.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Recurrence-free survival (RFS).

Results

Following random allocation, 747 women received T+CEF, and 753 women received TX+CEX. Five patients were excluded from the intention-to-treat population (3 had overt distant metastases at the time of randomization; 2 withdrew consent). The median age of the remaining 1495 patients was 53 years at the time of study entry; 157 (11%) had axillary node-negative disease; 1142 (76%) had ER-positive cancer; and 282 (19%) had HER2-positive cancer. The median follow-up time after random allocation was 10.3 years. There was no significant difference in RFS or overall survival between the groups (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.71-1.08; P = .23; and HR, 0.84, 95% CI, 0.66-1.07; P = .15; respectively). Breast cancer-specific survival tended to favor the capecitabine group (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.60-1.04; P = .10). When RFS and survival of the patients were compared within the subgroups defined by cancer steroid hormone receptor status (ER and/or PR positive vs ER and PR negative) and HER2 status (positive vs negative), TX+CEX was more effective than T+CEF in the subset of patients with TNBC (HR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.31-0.92; P = .02; and HR, 0.55, 95% CI, 0.31-0.96; P = .03; respectively).

Conclusions and Relevance

Capecitabine administration with docetaxel, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide did not prolong RFS or survival compared with a regimen that contained only standard agents. Patients with TNBC had favorable survival outcomes when treated with the capecitabine-containing regimen in an exploratory subgroup analysis.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00114816.

CREATE-X a role for capecitabine in early-stage breast cancer: an analysis of available data

Breast cancer patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgery may benefit from additional anti-cancer therapies. Capecitabine, an oral antimetabolite and prodrug of 5-Flurouracil, has been approved for treating metastatic breast cancer. One randomized clinical trial (CREATE-X) of capecitabine versus no additional therapy has been conducted in women with early stage breast cancer who received standard chemotherapy pre-operative therapy and had residual invasive breast cancer at the time of surgery. Results from CREATE-X, showed that capecitabine had a statistically significant survival advantage compared with no additional therapy. This perspective provides a review and analysis of the available data from CREATEx in the context of results from other adjuvant trials of capecitabine in early stage breast cancer that had disease-free survival as a primary endpoint. We conclude that although the previously published studies of capecitabine in the adjuvant setting did not meet their primary endpoint, the data from these studies are consistent with the hypothesis that capecitabine may offer additional survival benefit in patients with chemo-refractory breast cancer at the time of surgery after receiving standard chemotherapy. In these patients, offering a course of adjuvant capecitabine or enrolling the patient in a clinical trial are appropriate therapeutic options. The patient should be informed about both the increased survival observed in the CREATEx trial and the expected toxicities from capecitabine chemotherapy.

Adjuvant Capecitabine for Breast Cancer after Preoperative Chemotherapy

BACKGROUND

Patients who have residual invasive carcinoma after the receipt of neoadjuvant chemotherapy for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative breast cancer have poor prognoses. The benefit of adjuvant chemotherapy in these patients remains unclear.

METHODS

We randomly assigned 910 patients with HER2-negative residual invasive breast cancer after neoadjuvant chemotherapy (containing anthracycline, taxane, or both) to receive standard postsurgical treatment either with capecitabine or without (control). The primary end point was disease-free survival. Secondary end points included overall survival.

RESULTS

The result of the prespecified interim analysis met the primary end point, so this trial was terminated early. The final analysis showed that disease-free survival was longer in the capecitabine group than in the control group (74.1% vs. 67.6% of the patients were alive and free from recurrence or second cancer at 5 years; hazard ratio for recurrence, second cancer, or death, 0.70; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.53 to 0.92; P=0.01). Overall survival was longer in the capecitabine group than in the control group (89.2% vs. 83.6% of the patients were alive at 5 years; hazard ratio for death, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.90; P=0.01). Among patients with triple-negative disease, the rate of disease-free survival was 69.8% in the capecitabine group versus 56.1% in the control group (hazard ratio for recurrence, second cancer, or death, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.39 to 0.87), and the overall survival rate was 78.8% versus 70.3% (hazard ratio for death, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.30 to 0.90). The hand-foot syndrome, the most common adverse reaction to capecitabine, occurred in 73.4% of the patients in the capecitabine group.

CONCLUSIONS

After standard neoadjuvant chemotherapy containing anthracycline, taxane, or both, the addition of adjuvant capecitabine therapy was safe and effective in prolonging disease-free survival and overall survival among patients with HER2-negative breast cancer who had residual invasive disease on pathological testing. (Funded by the Advanced Clinical Research Organization and the Japan Breast Cancer Research Group; CREATE-X UMIN Clinical Trials Registry number, UMIN000000843 .).

Addition of gemcitabine to paclitaxel, epirubicin, and cyclophosphamide adjuvant chemotherapy for women with early-stage breast cancer (tAnGo): final 10-year follow-up of an open-label, randomised, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The tAnGo trial was designed to investigate the potential role of gemcitabine when added to anthracycline and taxane-containing adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer. When this study was developed, gemcitabine had shown significant activity in metastatic breast cancer, and there was evidence of a favourable interaction with paclitaxel.

METHODS

tAnGo was an international, open-label, randomised, phase 3 superiority trial that enrolled women aged 18 years or older with newly diagnosed, early-stage breast cancer who had a definite indication for chemotherapy, any nodal status, any hormone receptor status, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status of 0-1, and adequate bone marrow, hepatic, and renal function. Women were recruited from 127 clinical centres and hospitals in the UK and Ireland, and randomly assigned (1:1) to one of two treatment regimens: epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel (four cycles of 90 mg/m2 intravenously administered epirubicin and 600 mg/m2 intravenously administered cyclophosphamide on day 1 every 3 weeks, followed by four cycles of 175 mg/m2 paclitaxel as a 3 h infusion on day 1 every 3 weeks) or epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel plus gemcitabine (the same chemotherapy regimen as the other group, with the addition of 1250 mg/m2 gemcitabine to the paclitaxel cycles, administered intravenously as a 0·5 h infusion on days 1 and 8 every 3 weeks). Patients were randomly assigned by a central computerised deterministic minimisation procedure, with stratification by country, age, radiotherapy intent, nodal status, and oestrogen receptor and HER-2 status. The primary endpoint was disease-free survival and the trial aimed to detect 5% differences in 5-year disease-free survival between the treatment groups. Recruitment completed in 2004 and this is the final, intention-to-treat analysis. This trial is registered with EudraCT (2004-002927-41), ISRCTN (51146252), and ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT00039546).

FINDINGS

Between Aug 22, 2001, and Nov 26, 2004, 3152 patients were enrolled and randomly assigned to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, paclitaxel, and gemcitabine (gemcitabine group; n=1576) or to epirubicin, cyclophosphamide, and paclitaxel (control group; n=1576). 11 patients (six in the gemcitabine group and five in the control group) were ineligible because of pre-existing metastases and were therefore excluded from the analysis. At this protocol-specified final analysis (median follow-up 10 years [IQR 10-10]), 1087 disease-free survival events and 914 deaths had occurred. Disease-free survival did not differ significantly between the treatment groups at 10 years (65% [63-68] in the gemcitabine group vs 65% [62-67] in the control group), and median disease-free survival was not reached (adjusted hazard ratio 0·97 [95% CI 0·86-1·10], p=0·64). Toxicity, dose intensity, and a detailed safety substudy showed both regimens to be safe, deliverable, and tolerable. Grade 3 and 4 toxicities were reported at expected levels in both groups. The most common were neutropenia (527 [34%] of 1565 patients in the gemcitabine group vs 412 [26%] of 1567 in the control group), myalgia and arthralgia (207 [13%] vs 186 [12%]), fatigue (207 [13%] vs 152 [10%]), infection (202 [13%] vs 141 [9%]), vomiting (143 [9%] vs 108 [7%]), and nausea (132 [8%] vs 102 [7%]).

INTERPRETATION

The addition of gemcitabine to anthracycline and taxane-based adjuvant chemotherapy at this dose and schedule confers no therapeutic advantage in terms of disease-free survival in early breast cancer, although it can cause increased toxicity. Therefore, gemcitabine has not been added to standard adjuvant chemotherapy in breast cancer for any subgroup.

FUNDING

Cancer Research UK core funding for Clinical Trials Unit at the University of Birmingham, Eli Lilly, Bristol-Myers Squibb, and Pfizer.

Capecitabine in early breast cancer: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

PURPOSE

Capecitabine is an effective therapy for metastatic breast cancer. Its role in early breast cancer is uncertain due to conflicting data from randomised controlled trials (RCTs).

METHODS

PubMed and major conference proceedings were searched to identify RCTs comparing standard chemotherapy with or without capecitabine in the neoadjuvant or adjuvant setting. Hazard ratios (HRs) for disease-free survival (DFS) and overall survival (OS), as well as odds ratios (ORs) for toxicities were extracted or calculated and pooled in a meta-analysis. Subgroup analysis compared triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) to non-TNBC and whether capecitabine was given in addition to or in place of standard chemotherapy. Meta-regression was used to explore the influence of TNBC on OS.

RESULTS

Eight studies comprising 9302 patients were included. In unselected patients, capecitabine did not influence DFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.99, p = 0.93) or OS (HR 0.90, p = 0.36). There was a significant difference in DFS when capecitabine was given in addition to standard treatment compared with in place of standard treatment (HR 0.92 versus 1.62, interaction p = 0.002). Addition of capecitabine to standard chemotherapy was associated with significantly improved DFS in TNBC versus non-TNBC (HR 0.72 versus 1.01, interaction p = 0.02). Meta-regression showed that adding capecitabine to standard chemotherapy was associated with improved OS in studies with higher proportions of patients with TNBC (R = -0.967, p = 0.007). Capecitabine increased grade 3/4 diarrhoea (odds ratio [OR] 2.33, p < 0.001) and hand-foot syndrome (OR 8.08, p < 0.001), and resulted in more frequent treatment discontinuation (OR 3.80, p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Adding capecitabine to standard chemotherapy appears to improve DFS and OS in TNBC, but increases adverse events in keeping with its known toxicity profile.

Clinical Value of Capecitabine-Based Combination Adjuvant Chemotherapy in Early Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Capecitabine has consistently demonstrated high efficacy and acceptable tolerability in salvage chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. However, there remains no consensus on its role in adjuvant chemotherapy for early breast cancer (EBC). To estimate the value of capecitabine-based combination adjuvant treatment in EBC, eight randomized controlled trials with 14,072 participants were analyzed. The efficacy and safety outcomes included disease-free survival (DFS), overall survival (OS), relapse, breast cancer-specific survival (BCSS), and grades 3-5 adverse events. Capecitabine-based combination adjuvant chemotherapy demonstrated a 16% increase in BCSS (HR = 0.84, 95% CI = 0.71-0.98, p = 0.03) in the overall analysis and a 22% improvement in DFS (HR = 0.78, 95% CI = 0.64-0.96, p = 0.02) in the hormone receptor-negative (HR-) subgroup. However, there were no significant differences in DFS (HR = 0.96, 95% CI = 0.89-1.05, p = 0.38), OS (HR = 0.91, 95% CI = 0.82-1.00, p = 0.06), or relapse between capecitabine-based and capecitabine-free combination adjuvant chemotherapy. Analogous results were observed in the subgroup analyses of HR+, HER2-, HER2+, and triple-negative EBC. Regarding safety, reduced myelosuppression and hand-foot syndrome development were observed in capecitabine-treated patients. Capecitabine-based combination adjuvant chemotherapy might provide some BCSS benefit compared with capecitabine-free regimens in EBC, but the absolute survival gain is small, and the survival benefit appears to be restricted to patients with HR- EBC, which may indicate a target population for capecitabine-based combination adjuvant chemotherapy.

Involvement of intracellular cAMP in epirubicin-induced vascular endothelial cell injury

We investigated the involvement of intracellular cAMP in endothelial cell injury induced by epirubicin. Epirubicin-induced decrease in cell viability and increase in caspase-3/7 activity were reversed by a cAMP analog dibutyryl cAMP (DBcAMP) or an activator of adenylate cyclase forskolin concomitant with a phosphodiesterase inhibitor 3-isobutyl-1-methylxanthine. Moreover, epirubicin-induced elevation of lipid peroxide levels was attenuated by DBcAMP. Interestingly, the exposure of epirubicin decreased intracellular cAMP levels before the onset of epirubicin-induced production of lipid peroxidation. These results suggest that intracellular cAMP plays an important role in epirubicin-induced endothelial cell injury.

Capecitabine in Combination with Standard (Neo)Adjuvant Regimens in Early Breast Cancer: Survival Outcome from a Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

Capecitabine has been investigated in early breast cancer in several studies, but it was undefined that whether it could improve survival. To investigate whether the addition of capecitabine affected survival in patients with early breast cancer, a meta-analysis was conducted and overall survival (OS), disease-free survival (DFS), and toxicity were assessed. The PubMed, Embase databases and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for studies between January 2006 and April 2016. Hazard ratios (HRs) with their 95% confidence intervals (CIs), or data for calculating HRs with 95% CI were derived. Seven trials with 9097 patients, consisted of 4 adjuvant and 3 neoadjuvant studies, were included in this meta-analysis. Adding capecitabine showed no improvement in DFS (HR = 0.93; 95% CI, 0.85-1.02; P = 0.12), whereas a significant improvement in OS was observed (HR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75-0.96; P = 0.008). A sub-analysis of DFS showed that benefit of capecitabine derived from patients with triple negative subtype and with extensive axillary involvement. Safety profiles were consistent with the known side-effects of capecitabine, but more patients discontinued scheduled treatment in the capecitabine group. Combining capecitabine with standard (neo)adjuvant regimens in early breast cancer demonstrated a significantly superior OS, and indicated DFS improvement in some subtypes with high risk of recurrence. Selection of subtypes was a key to identify patients who might gain survival benefit from capecitabine.