Comparative Effectiveness of Taxane-Containing Regimens for Treatment of HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Network Meta-analysis

Efficacy Evaluation of Bevacizumab Combined with Capecitabine in the Treatment of HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Meta-Analysis

Objective

This study aims to evaluate the efficacy of bevacizumab combined with capecitabine in treating HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer through meta-analysis.

Methods

We searched literature from databases, including PubMed, Web of Science, Wiley Online Library, Ovid, CNKI, and Wanfang databases, for randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of bevacizumab combined with capecitabine (experimental group) and other treatments (control group) for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Retrieved articles were published from the establishment of the database to August 9, 2022. The main outcome indicators were disease progression rate (RDP), disease progression-free survival (PFS), 1-year survival rate (OSR), the occurrence of serious adverse events (SAEs), and objective remission rate (ORR). The risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane systematic evaluation tool. Then, the meta-analysis was carried out using Stata16.0 software, and subgroup analysis was carried out based on various intervention methods in the control group.

Results

8 RCTs were finally included in this study, including 2470 patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. The results of meta-analysis showed that bevacizumab combined with capecitabine had no significant advantage over the control group in terms of RDP, but the results of subgroup analysis were consistent and significant (subgroup 1 (bevacizumab or chemotherapy): DR = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.14, 0.09), P = 0.01; subgroup 2 (bevacizumab plus paclitaxel therapy): DR = -0.03, 95% CI (-0.14, 0.09), P = 0.03). Furthermore, there was no statistical difference in terms of PFS of the experimental group (MD = 9.24, 95% CI (7.88, 32.67), P = 0.05). However, the subgroup analysis showed that the combination of bevacizumab and capecitabine demonstrated a more significant significance than bevacizumab or chemotherapy alone (subgroup 1: MD = 10.11, 95% CI (7.88, 12.34), P = 0.00). Compared with the control group, the experimental group had significant differences in OSR (DR = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.01, 0.15), P = 0.00) and ORR (DR = 0.07, 95% CI (-0.01, 0.15), P = 0.00). In terms of safety, the incidence of serious adverse events in the experimental group did not show a statistically significant difference (MD = 0.01, 95% CI (-0.21, 0.19), P = 0.82). When subgroup analyses were performed, the bevacizumab plus capecitabine regimen was associated with an increased incidence of serious adverse events compared with the drug alone (subgroup 1: MD = 0.02, 95% CI (-0.16, 0.20), P = 0.00) but a reduction in serious adverse events compared with the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel regimen (subgroup 2: DR = -0.01, 95% CI (-0.21, 0.19), P = 0.00).

Conclusion

The combination therapy of bevacizumab and capecitabine can significantly improve the RDP and OSR of patients compared with the control group. The PFS and ORR of the experimental group are significantly higher than those of bevacizumab or chemotherapy alone. Still, no statistical difference was observed for these outcome indicators between two combined treatments of bevacizumab with capecitabine or paclitaxel. Although this combined treatment scheme may increase the incidence of serious adverse events compared with that of bevacizumab or chemotherapy alone, the incidence of adverse events was decreased compared with bevacizumab combined with paclitaxel. Therefore, the chemotherapy regimen for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in clinical practice can be selected according to the actual situation of the patients.

Front-Line Bevacizumab plus Chemotherapy with or without Maintenance Therapy for Metastatic Breast Cancer: An Observational Study by the Hellenic Oncology Research Group

Front-line bevacizumab (BEV) in combination with taxanes offers benefit in progression-free survival (PFS) in metastatic breast cancer (mBC). The medical records of mBC patients, treated with front-line BEV-based chemotherapy, were retrospectively reviewed in order to generate real life safety and efficacy data. Patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative mBC treated with front-line BEV in combination with chemotherapy were eligible. Maintenance therapy with BEV and/or hormonal agents was at the physicians’ discretion. Among the 387 included patients, the most common adverse events were anemia (61.9%, mainly grade 1), grade 3/4 neutropenia (16.5%), grade 1/2 fatigue (22.3%), and grade 1/2 neuropathy (19.6%). Dose reductions were required in 164 cycles (7.1%) and toxicity led to treatment discontinuation in 21 patients (5.4%). The median PFS and the median overall survival (OS) were 13.3 (95% CI: 11.7–14.8) and 32.3 months (95% CI: 27.7–36.9), respectively. Maintenance therapy, with hormonal agents (ET) and/or BEV, was associated with longer OS versus no maintenance therapy (47.2 versus 23.6 months; p < 0.001) in patients with hormone receptor (HR)-positive disease and BEV maintenance offered longer OS versus no maintenance in patients with HR-negative disease (52.8 versus 23.3; p = 0.023). These real-life data show that front-line BEV-based chemotherapy in HER2-negative mBC patients is an effective treatment with an acceptable toxicity profile. The potential benefit of maintenance treatment, especially ET, is important and warrants further research.

A Phase I Study of an MPS1 Inhibitor (BAY 1217389) in Combination with Paclitaxel Using a Novel Randomized Continual Reassessment Method for Dose Escalation

PURPOSE

Monopolar spindle 1 (MPS1) kinase inhibitor, BAY 1217389 (BAY) synergizes with paclitaxel. This phase I study assessed the combination of BAY with paclitaxel using a novel randomized continuous reassessment method (rCRM) to improve dose determination.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients with solid tumors were randomized to receive oral BAY (twice daily 2-days-on/5-days-off) with weekly paclitaxel (90 mg/m²) or paclitaxel monotherapy in cycle 1. Dose escalation was guided by CRM modeling. Primary objectives were to assess safety, establish the MTD of BAY, and to evaluate the pharmacokinetic profiles for both compounds. Simulations were performed to determine the contribution of the rCRM for dose determination.

RESULTS

In total, 75 patients were enrolled. The main dose-limiting toxicities were hematologic toxicities (55.6%). The MTD of BAY was established at 64 mg twice daily with paclitaxel. Inclusion of a control arm enabled the definitive attribution of grade ≥3 neutropenia to higher BAY exposure [AUC_0-12 (P< 0.001)]. After determining the MTD, we included 19 patients with breast cancer at this dose for dose expansion. Other common toxicities were nausea (45.3%), fatigue (41.3%), and diarrhea (40.0%). Overall confirmed responses were seen in 31.6% of evaluable patients. Simulations showed that rCRM outperforms traditional designs in determining the true MTD.

CONCLUSIONS

The combination of BAY with paclitaxel was associated with considerable toxicity without a therapeutic window. However, the use of the rCRM design enabled us to determine the exposure-toxicity relation for BAY. Therefore, we propose that the rCRM could improve dose determination in phase I trials that combine agents with overlapping toxicities.

Efficacy and Safety of Capecitabine Alone or in Combination in Advanced Metastatic Breast Cancer Patients Previously Treated with Anthracycline and Taxane: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

Capecitabine is frequently used alone or combined with other chemotherapy agents for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer in relapsed patients.

OBJECTIVE

The objective of this meta-analysis is to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of capecitabine monotherapy versus combination in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer patients pretreated with anthracycline and taxane.

METHODS

Eligible randomized controlled trials examining the efficacy and safety of capecitabine alone compared to capecitabine combination were systematically searched. Progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR), and grades 3-4 drug-related adverse events were the outcomes assessed.

RESULTS

A total of 6,714 patients of 9 trials were involved in the pooled analysis. Our findings demonstrated that capecitabine combination is significantly superior to capecitabine monotherapy in improving PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 1.32, 95% CI 1.13-1.54, p < 0.0001) and ORR (risk ratio [RR] 0.67, 95% CI 0.54-0.83, p < 0.001), but it was insignificant in OS (HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.98-1.22, p = 0.12). On the other hand, the incidence of non-hematological adverse events such as hand-foot syndrome and diarrhea was lower in capecitabine combination compared to capecitabine monotherapy.

CONCLUSION

Capecitabine-based combination chemotherapy showed superiority over capecitabine monotherapy in terms of PFS and ORR, with no significant difference in OS. Non-hematological adverse effects such as hand-foot syndrome were fewer with a combination regimen. However, hematological adverse events were fewer with capecitabine monotherapy regimen.