Vinorelbine as first-line or second-line therapy for advanced breast cancer: a Phase I-II trial by the Danish Breast Cancer Co-operative Group

Metronomic treatment of vinorelbine with oral capecitabine is tolerable in the randomized Phase 2 study XeNa including patients with HER2 non-amplified metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Metronomic treatment is hypothesized to be less toxic and more effective as compared to standard maximal tolerable dosing treatment in metastatic cancer disease.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

We tested the metronomic treatment principle with vinorelbine in a randomized phase 2 setting combined with standard capecitabine treatment in the XeNa trial with Clinical Trials.gov identifier number: NCT0141771. 120 patients with disseminated HER2 non-amplified breast cancer were included. Randomization was between Arm A: vinorelbine 60 mg/m² day 1 + day 8 in the first cycle followed by 80 mg/m² day 1 + day 8 in the following cycles or Arm B: vinorelbine 50 mg three times a week. Capecitabine 1000 mg/m² twice a day for days 1-14 was administered in both arms.

RESULTS

The treatment was generally well-tolerated. The response rate (RR) was 24% (arm A) versus 29% (arm B) (p = .67). The clinical benefit rate (CBR) 46.8% (arm A) versus 51.7% (arm B) (p = .72). We found a median progression-free survival (PFS) of 7.1 months (95% confidence interval [CI] 3.9-10.3) in arm A and 6.3 months (95% CI 4.1-8.5) in arm B (p = .25) whereas median overall survival (OS) was 23.3 months (95% CI 20.2-26.4) in arm A and 22.3 months (95% CI 14.3-30.3) in arm B (p = .76).

CONCLUSIONS

We confirmed that the combination of vinorelbine and capecitabine was well tolerated. Metronomic treatment can be used with acceptable adverse events (AEs), but we did not find significant difference in the effect compared to the standard treatment.

The NAME trial: a direct comparison of classical oral Navelbine versus Metronomic Navelbine in metastatic breast cancer

Chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is in general given in cycles of maximum tolerated doses to potentially maximize the therapeutic outcome. However, when compared with targeted therapies for MBC, conventional and dose intensified chemotherapy has caused only modest survival benefits during the recent decades, often compromising the quality of life considerably. Navelbine is an antineoplastic agent that has shown efficacy in the treatment of a variety of cancer types, including breast cancer. Early clinical trials involving both breast cancer and lung cancer patients suggest that metronomic dosing of Navelbine might be at least as effective as classical administration (once weekly, etc.). The NAME trial compares these two strategies of Navelbine administration in MBC patients.

Individualized chemotherapy based on organ selectivity: a retrospective study of vinorelbine and capecitabine for patients with metastatic breast cancer

OBJECTIVES

This study proposed a conception of individualized chemotherapy based on organ selectivity of drug distribution by retrospectively comparing the effect of vinorelbine and capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

Between January 2002 and December 2009, 133 patients with lung metastasis and 87 patients with liver metastasis were analyzed and followed up until December 2012. The survival analysis was performed by Kaplan-Meier. Multivariate analysis was conducted to identify independent prognostic factors.

RESULTS

The median time to progression of the vinorelbine, capecitabine and anthracycline/taxane groups of patients with lung metastasis was 5.7, 2.9 and 2.1 months, respectively. Median overall survival of the vinorelbine group (27.4 months) was longer than the capecitabine (12.2 months, P = 0.027) and anthracycline/taxane groups (9.1 months, P < 0.001) in patients with lung metastasis. The median time to progression of the vinorelbine, capecitabine and anthracycline/taxane groups of patients with liver metastasis was 2.3, 7.3 and 2.6 months, respectively. Median overall survival of the capecitabine group (15.2 months) was longer than the vinorelbine (9.0 months, P = 0.029) and anthracycline/taxane groups (6.4 months, P = 0.004) in patients with liver metastasis.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results indicate that vinorelbine and capecitabine have different advantageous effects in breast cancer patients with lung/liver metastasis. Thus, we propose individualized chemotherapy based on organ specificity and pharmacokinetics.

Evolution of clinical trial design in early drug development: systematic review of expansion cohort use in single-agent phase I cancer trials

PURPOSE

To evaluate the use and objectives of expansion cohorts in phase I cancer trials and to explore trial characteristics associated with their use.

METHODS

We performed a systematic review of MEDLINE and EMBASE, limiting studies to single-agent phase I trials recruiting adults and published after 2006. Eligibility assessment and data extraction were performed by two reviewers. Data were assessed descriptively, and associations were tested by univariable and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

We identified 611 unique phase I cancer trials, of which 149 (24%) included an expansion cohort. The trials were significantly more likely to use an expansion cohort if they were published more recently, were multicenter, or evaluated a noncytotoxic agent. Objectives of the expansion cohort were reported in 74% of trials. In these trials, safety (80%), efficacy (45%), pharmacokinetics (28%), pharmacodynamics (23%), and patient enrichment (14%) were cited as objectives. Among expansion cohorts with safety objectives, the recommended phase II dose was modified in 13% and new toxicities were described in 54% of trials. Among trials aimed at assessing efficacy, only 11% demonstrated antitumor activity assessed by response criteria that was not previously observed during dose escalation.

CONCLUSION

The utilization of expansion cohorts has increased with time. Safety and efficacy are common objectives, but 26% fail to report explicit aims. Expansion cohorts may provide useful supplementary data for phase I trials, particularly with regard to toxicity and definition of recommended dose for phase II studies.

A randomized feasibility study of docetaxel versus vinorelbine in advanced breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Docetaxel and vinorelbine have demonstrated efficacy in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). This prospective feasibility study compared the efficacy of these two treatments in MBC.

METHODS

Patients with MBC progressing following anthracycline treatment were randomly assigned to either docetaxel (100 mg/m(2)day 1 q3W) or vinorelbine (25mg/m(2) day 1 q2W). Patients were eligible to cross over at progression. Objective response rates (ORR), time to progression (TTP) and overall survival (OS) were measured.

RESULTS

37 patients were randomised. 2 patients were excluded due to protocol violations. Of 35 remaining patients 17 received docetaxel and 18 received vinorelbine per protocol. ORR was 12.5% and 6.0% respectively for docetaxel and vinorelbine. The median time to progression was 10.4 weeks (range 6-14 weeks) in docetaxel arm and 7.6 weeks (range 4-11 weeks) in vinorelbine arm (p = .82). The clinical benefit rate (defined as complete response, partial response plus stable disease) was 44% in the docetaxel arm and 12% in the vinorelbine arm. Based on intent to treat the median OS in the docetaxel arm was 34 weeks (95% CI, 20.7-48) and 21.2 weeks (95% CI, 17-25.4) in vinorelbine arm (p = .388). 16 patients crossed over, 5 from docetaxel to vinorelbine and 11 from vinorelbine to docetaxel. At cross over the ORR was 0% and 18% on cross over to vinorelbine and docetaxel respectively with a median TTP of 17.3 weeks (95% CI, 16.3-18.1) and 18.7 weeks (95% CI, 13.9-23.4) for those receiving vinorebine and docetaxel at cross over respectively. Vinorelbine however was much better tolerated with fewer grade 3-4 toxicity events (n = 4) than docetaxel (n = 27).

DISCUSSION

While docetaxel resulted in a longer TTP and OS in this study it did not reach statistical significance. TTP duration for those patients who crossed over was similar, but overwhelmingly vinorelbine had fewer significant grade 3-4 toxicities than docetaxel. Only two previous randomized studies have compared the efficacy of single agent docetaxel and vinorelbine following prior anthracycline exposure, one in an unselected population [16], and the other, HERNATA, in HER2 positive disease with trastuzumab used in both arms [17]. The patients randomized in this study were relatively heavily pretreated with the majority having received 2-3 lines of prior treatment for their metastatic disease. The lower response rates with vinorelbine as compared to docetaxel in this study concur with results reported in other studies [16]. However, the numbers in both this study and the other unselected study [16] are small and need to be interpreted with caution. With regard to toxicity, in the present study, grade 3-4 hematological adverse events and infection were tenfold greater with docetaxel as compared with vinorelbine, consistent with results in HERNATA [17]. While others have reported a significantly higher number of overall grade 3-4 toxicities with vinorelbine [16], the fact that, as in HERNATA, discontinuations due to toxicities in that study [16] were significantly greater with docetaxel as compared to vinorelbine suggests either the toxicity data collected did not reflect the true toxicities on treatment or that docetaxel toxicities were in some way more severe or protracted leading to more numerous discontinuations [16]. Larger randomized studies are needed to determine (1) the efficacy of docetaxel versus vinorelbine in anthracycline pretreated disease and (2) the efficacy of vinorelbine after prior taxane exposure, and particularly how it may compares both with regard to efficacy and tolerability with other possible regimens that may utilized such as carboplatin-gemcitabine [20] or eribulin [21]. The longer as well as comparable TTP at cross over for both agents compared to that upfront suggests there may be enrichment at cross over of a group of patients who are not only fit for further treatment but are more likely to a derive continued benefit from additional treatment.

[Treatment patterns in advanced breast cancer with anthracycline and taxanes and their costs in three public hospitals of Mexico]

OBJECTIVES

In Mexico, breast cancer is the second leading cause of cancer mortality among females. For patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC) resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes (AT), there are limited treatment options. There is a scarcity of data regarding clinical management of this population and treatment costs at this stage of the disease. The objective of this study was to describe the treatment patterns of care for metastatic breast cancer after AT and the associated cost from the point-of-view of the Mexican Public Health Care Sector.

METHODS

Between January 1, 2004 and December 31, 2007, a retrospective cohort of adult female ABC patients resistant to AT was developed by reviewing and extracting key data from medical charts. We conducted a retrospective, transversal and descriptive analysis of the patient data. Target population data files were obtained from 414 patients from 3 public hospitals in México.

RESULTS

Capecitabine, vinorelbine and cyclophosphamide were the most commonly prescribed agents, however clinical drug therapy management of the disease was different within and among the three hospitals included in the study. This difference translated into a disparity of prescription costs, ranging from an average of $122.22 pesos/patient/month (cyclophosphamide, IC 95% $94.43-$150.01) to $37,835.53 pesos/patient/month (capecitabine+trastuzumab IC 95% $34,953.18-$40,717.88) for the first treatment after AT.

CONCLUSIONS

The results highlight a lack of standardized care for patients and suggest that differences in treatment patterns are not only a reflection of scarcity of scientific data and diversity of prescription preferences among physicians but also of economic restrictions. Ultimately, there is a clear unmet medical need to be addressed through evidence-based medicine alternatives that support efficacy and cost effectiveness treatments.