Optimising the dose of capecitabine in metastatic breast cancer: confused, clarified or confirmed?

Cost-effectiveness analysis of capecitabine maintenance therapy plus best supportive care vs. best supportive care alone as first-line treatment of newly diagnosed metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma

Objectives

Maintenance therapy with capecitabine after induction chemotherapy for patients with newly diagnosed metastatic nasopharyngeal carcinoma (mNPC) has been confirmed to be effective. This study aimed to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of capecitabine as maintenance therapy for patients with mNPC from the Chinese payers' perspective.

Methods

Markov model was conducted to simulate the disease progress and evaluated the economic and health outcomes of capecitabine maintenance plus best-supported care (CBSC) or best-supported care (BSC) alone for patients with mNPC. Survival data were derived from the NCT02460419 clinical trial. Costs and utilities were obtained from the standard fee database and published literature. Measured outcomes were total costs, quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs), life-years (LYs), incremental cost-utility ratios (ICURs), incremental cost-effectiveness ratios (ICERs), incremental net monetary benefit (INMB), and incremental net-health benefit (INHB). Sensitivity analyses were performed to assess model robustness. Additional subgroup cost-effectiveness analyses were accomplished.

Results

Throughout the course of the disease, the CBSC group provide an incremental cost of $9 734 and additional 1.16 QALYs (1.56 LYs) compared with the BSC group, resulting in an ICUR of $8 391/QALY and ICER of $6 240/LY. Moreover, the INHB was 0.89 QALYs, and the INMB was $32 034 at the willingness-to-pay threshold of $36 007/QALY. Subgroup analyses revealed that CBSC presented a positive trend of gaining an INHB in all subgroups compared with the BSC group. The results of sensitivity analyses supported the robustness of our model.

Conclusion

Compared with BSC, after induction chemotherapy, CBSC as a first-line treatment was cost-effective for newly diagnosed mNPC. These results suggest capecitabine maintenance therapy after induction chemotherapy as a new option for patients with newly diagnosed mNPC.

Pre-treatment levels of inflammatory markers and chemotherapy completion rates in patients with early-stage breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Chemotherapy efficacy is largely dependent on treatment adherence, defined by the relative dose intensity (RDI). Identification of new modifiable risk factors associated with low RDI might improve chemotherapy delivery. Here, we evaluated the association between low RDI and pre-chemotherapy factors, including patient- and treatment-related characteristics and markers of inflammation.

METHODS

This exploratory analysis assessed data from 267 patients with early-stage breast cancer scheduled to undergo (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy included in the Physical training and Cancer (Phys-Can) trial. The association between low RDI, defined as < 85%, patient-related (age, body mass index, co-morbid condition, body surface area) and treatment-related factors (cancer stage, receptor status, chemotherapy duration, chemotherapy dose, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor) was investigated. Analyses further included the association between RDI and pre-chemotherapy levels of interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, IL-10, C-reactive protein (CRP) and Tumor Necrosis Factor-alpha (TNF-α) in 172 patients with available blood samples.

RESULTS

An RDI of < 85% occurred in 31 patients (12%). Univariable analysis revealed a significant association with a chemotherapy duration above 20 weeks (p < 0.001), chemotherapy dose (p = 0.006), pre-chemotherapy IL-8 (OR 1.61; 95% CI (1.01; 2.58); p = 0.040) and TNF-α (OR 2.2 (1.17; 4.53); p = 0.019). In multivariable analyses, inflammatory cytokines were significant association with low RDI for IL-8 (OR: 1.65 [0.99; 2.69]; p = 0.044) and TNF-α (OR 2.95 [1.41; 7.19]; p = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

This exploratory analysis highlights the association of pre-chemotherapy IL-8 and TNF-α with low RDI of chemotherapy for breast cancer. IL-8 and TNF-α may therefore potentially help to identify patients at risk for experiencing dose reductions. Clinical trial number NCT02473003 (registration: June 16, 2015).

Health-related quality of life with palbociclib plus endocrine therapy versus capecitabine in postmenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive metastatic breast cancer: Patient-reported outcomes in the PEARL study

BACKGROUND

The PEARL study showed that palbociclib plus endocrine therapy (palbociclib/ET) was not superior to capecitabine in improving progression-free survival in postmenopausal patients with metastatic breast cancer resistant to aromatase inhibitors, but was better tolerated. This analysis compared patient-reported outcomes.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

The PEARL quality of life (QoL) population comprised 537 patients, 268 randomised to palbociclib/ET (exemestane or fulvestrant) and 269 to capecitabine. Patients completed the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 and EQ-5D-3L questionnaires. Changes from the baseline and time to deterioration (TTD) were analysed using linear mixed-effect and stratified Cox regression models, respectively.

RESULTS

Questionnaire completion rate was high and similar between treatment arms. Significant differences were observed in the mean change in global health status (GHS)/QoL scores from the baseline to cycle 3 (2.9 for palbociclib/ET vs. -2.1 for capecitabine (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-8.6; P = 0.007). The median TTD in GHS/QoL was 8.3 months for palbociclib/ET versus 5.3 months for capecitabine (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.70; 95% CI, 0.55-0.89; P = 0.003). Similar improvements for palbociclib/ET were also seen for other scales as physical, role, cognitive, social functioning, fatigue, nausea/vomiting and appetite loss. No differences were observed between the treatment arms in change from the baseline in any item of the EQ-5D-L3 questionnaire as per the overall index score and visual analogue scale.

CONCLUSION

Patients receiving palbociclib/ET experienced a significant delay in deterioration of GHS/QoL and several functional and symptom scales compared with capecitabine, providing additional evidence that palbociclib/ET is better tolerated.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

NCT02028507 (ClinTrials.gov).

EUDRACT STUDY NUMBER

2013-003170-27.

Comparative study of low dose of capecitabine versus standard dose in metastatic breast cancer: Efficacy and safety

Background

A lower dose of capecitabine revealed better toxicity profiles and comparable efficacy in treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). We aimed to evaluate the efficacy and toxicity of lower dose of capecitabine in comparison with the standard dose.

Patients and methods

Patients were enrolled in two groups. Group 1 included 21 patients who received the standard dose of capecitabine (1250 mg/m2 twice daily [BID] for 14 days), while the patients in group 2 (19 patients) received lower dose of capecitabine (850 mg/m2 BID for 14 days) every 3 weeks.

Results

In group 1, dose reduction was reported in 12 (57.1%) patients versus 1 patient in group 2 (5.3%; P = 0.0005). Patients in group 1 reported higher toxicity rates without any significant difference between the groups. The median duration of response was 17 weeks in group 1, while it was 19 weeks in group 2. Disease progression was recorded in 10 (47.6%) patients in group 1 versus 8 (42.1%) patients in group 2 (P = 0.81). The mean time to progression was 8.16 ± 0.63 months and the median was 10.1 months in group 1, while the mean was 8.98 ± 0.75 months and the median was 10 months in group 2 (P = 0.66). The overall survival had a mean of 11.94 ± 0.754 and 11.24 ± 0.665 months, while the median was 13.1 and 13 months in groups 1 and 2, respectively (P = 0.9).

Conclusion

A lower dose of capecitabine provides MBC patients with an active therapy that can be continued for prolonged periods to achieve long-term disease control without compromising its antitumor activity.

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 Evolving Complexity of Treating Hormone Receptor-Positive, Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor-2 (HER2)-Negative Breast Cancer: Special Considerations in Older Breast Cancer Patients-Part II: Metastatic Disease

Breast cancer is a disease of aging, and the incidence of breast cancer is projected to increase dramatically as the global population ages. The majority of breast cancers that occur in older adults are hormone-receptor positive, human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2)-negative phenotypes, with favorable tumor biology; yet, because of underrepresentation in clinical trials, less evidence is available to guide the complex care for this population. Providing care for older patients with metastatic breast cancer, with coexisting medical conditions, increased risk of treatment toxicity, and frailty, remains a clinical challenge in oncology. In this review, we provide an overview of the current evidence from clinical trials and subanalyses of older adults with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer, highlighting data on the safety and efficacy of oral therapies, including endocrine therapy alone or in combination with cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 4/6 inhibitors, phosphatidylinositol 3-kinase (PI3K) inhibitors, and mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) inhibitors. In addition, we note the significant underrepresentation of older and frail adults in these studies. Current and future directions in research for this special population, in order to address significant knowledge gaps, include the need to improve long-term adherence to hormonal and targeted therapy, prospective clinical trials that capture clinical and biological aging endpoints, and the need for a multidisciplinary approach with integration of geriatric and oncology principles.

Efficacy of different dosing schedules of capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer: a single-institution experience

Purpose Capecitabine is widely used as a single agent on a 21-day cycle in the management of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Our primary objective was to compare the standard dosing of capecitabine (Arm A: days 1-14 on 21-day cycle) to biweekly dosing (Arm B: days 1-7 and 15-21 on 28-day cycle) using retrospective data analysis. Methods 166 patients with MBC treated with single agent capecitabine at The Ohio State University from 2002 to 2014 were considered eligible. Median time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier (KM) methods. KM curves were compared using log-rank tests with Holm's correction for multiplicity. Results Patients were grouped by dose schedule into one of three arms: Arm A (21-day cycle; capecitabine given at 1000 mg/m² orally, twice daily on days 1-14 of 21-day cycle); Arm B (28-day cycle; capecitabine given at 1000 mg/m² orally, twice daily on days 1-7 and 15-21 of 28-day cycle); and Arm C (changeover regimen where patients started on the 21-day cycle, but changed to a 28-day cycle for tolerability). No difference was found in TTF or OS for patients with MBC between those who received capecitabine on either standard dosing (Arm A) and those on a biweekly cycle (Arm B or C). Overall, 41% of patients required dose reduction. Conclusions Our single institution experience showed that alternate dosing of capecitabine (biweekly, 28-day cycle) may be a reasonable alternative to standard 21-day cycle with similar efficacy and fewer dose reductions.

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.

Predictors of Hand-Foot Syndrome and Pyridoxine for Prevention of Capecitabine-Induced Hand-Foot Syndrome: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Importance

Hand-foot syndrome (HFS) is a common adverse effect of capecitabine treatment.

Objective

To compare the incidence and time to onset of grade 2 or greater HFS in patients receiving pyridoxine vs placebo and to identify biomarkers predictive of HFS.

Design, Setting, and Participants

This single-center, randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled phase 3 trial conducted at National Cancer Centre Singapore assessed whether oral pyridoxine could prevent the onset of grade 2 or higher HFS in 210 patients scheduled to receive single-agent capecitabine chemotherapy for breast, colorectal, and other cancers.

Interventions

Patients were randomized to receive concurrent pyridoxine (200 mg) or placebo daily for a maximum of 8 cycles of capecitabine, with stratification by sex and use in adjuvant or neoadjuvant vs palliative setting. Patients were withdrawn from the study on development of grade 2 or higher HFS or cessation of capecitabine.

Main Outcomes and Measures

Primary end point was the incidence of grade 2 or higher HFS in patients receiving pyridoxine. Secondary end points included the time to onset (days) of grade 2 or higher HFS and identification of biomarkers predictive of HFS, including baseline folate and vitamin B12 levels, as well as genetic polymorphisms with genome-wide arrays.

Results

In this cohort of 210 patients (median [range] age, 58 [26-82] years; 162 women) grade 2 or higher HFS occurred in 33 patients (31.4%) in the pyridoxine arm vs 39 patients (37.1%) in the placebo arm (P = .38). The median time to onset of grade 2 or higher HFS was not reached in both arms. In univariate analysis, the starting dose of capecitabine (odds ratio [OR], 1.99; 95% CI, 1.32-3.00; P = .001), serum folate levels (OR, 1.27; 95% CI, 1.10-1.47; P = .001), and red blood cell folate levels (OR, 1.25; 95% CI, 1.08-1.44; P = .003) were associated with increased risk of grade 2 or higher HFS. In multivariate analyses, serum folate (OR, 1.30; 95% CI, 1.12-1.52; P < .001) and red blood cell folate (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 1.10-1.49; P = .001) were the only significant predictors of grade 2 or higher HFS. Grade 2 or higher HFS was associated with 300 DNA variants at genome-wide significance (P < 5 × 10-8), including a novel DPYD variant (rs75267292; P = 1.57 × 10-10), and variants in the MACF1 (rs183324967, P = 4.80 × 10-11; rs148221738, P = 5.73 × 10-10) and SPRY2 (rs117876855, P < 1.01 × 10-8; rs139544515, P = 1.30 × 10-8) genes involved in wound healing.

Conclusions and Relevance

Pyridoxine did not significantly prevent or delay the onset of grade 2 or higher HFS. Serum and red blood cell folate levels are independent predictors of HFS.

Trial Registration

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00486213.

The ABC7 regimen: a new approach to metastatic breast cancer using seven common drugs to inhibit epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition and augment capecitabine efficacy

Breast cancer metastatic to bone has a poor prognosis despite recent advances in our understanding of the biology of both bone and breast cancer. This article presents a new approach, the ABC7 regimen (Adjuvant for Breast Cancer treatment using seven repurposed drugs), to metastatic breast cancer. ABC7 aims to defeat aspects of epithelial-to-mesenchymal transition (EMT) that lead to dissemination of breast cancer to bone. As add-on to current standard treatment with capecitabine, ABC7 uses ancillary attributes of seven already-marketed noncancer treatment drugs to stop both the natural EMT process inherent to breast cancer and the added EMT occurring as a response to current treatment modalities. Chemotherapy, radiation, and surgery provoke EMT in cancer generally and in breast cancer specifically. ABC7 uses standard doses of capecitabine as used in treating breast cancer today. In addition, ABC7 uses 1) an older psychiatric drug, quetiapine, to block RANK signaling; 2) pirfenidone, an anti-fibrosis drug to block TGF-beta signaling; 3) rifabutin, an antibiotic to block beta-catenin signaling; 4) metformin, a first-line antidiabetic drug to stimulate AMPK and inhibit mammalian target of rapamycin, (mTOR); 5) propranolol, a beta-blocker to block beta-adrenergic signaling; 6) agomelatine, a melatonergic antidepressant to stimulate M1 and M2 melatonergic receptors; and 7) ribavirin, an antiviral drug to prevent eIF4E phosphorylation. All these block the signaling pathways - RANK, TGF-beta, mTOR, beta-adrenergic receptors, and phosphorylated eIF4E - that have been shown to trigger EMT and enhance breast cancer growth and so are worthwhile targets to inhibit. Agonism at MT1 and MT2 melatonergic receptors has been shown to inhibit both breast cancer EMT and growth. This ensemble was designed to be safe and augment capecitabine efficacy. Given the expected outcome of metastatic breast cancer as it stands today, ABC7 warrants a cautious trial.

Randomized Phase III Trial of Trastuzumab Plus Capecitabine With or Without Pertuzumab in Patients With Human Epidermal Growth Factor Receptor 2-Positive Metastatic Breast Cancer Who Experienced Disease Progression During or After Trastuzumab-Based Therapy

Purpose To assess the efficacy and safety of trastuzumab plus capecitabine with or without pertuzumab in patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-positive metastatic breast cancer who experienced disease progression during or after trastuzumab-based therapy and received a prior taxane. Patients and Methods Patients were randomly assigned to arm A: trastuzumab 8 mg/kg → 6 mg/kg once every 3 weeks plus capecitabine 1,250 mg/m² twice a day (2 weeks on, 1 week off, every 3 weeks); or arm B: pertuzumab 840 mg → 420 mg once every 3 weeks plus trastuzumab at the same dose and schedule as arm A plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² on the same schedule as arm A. The primary end point was independent review facility-assessed progression-free survival (IRF PFS). Secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and safety. Hierarchical testing procedures were used to control type I error for statistical testing of IRF PFS, OS, and objective response rate. Results Randomly assigned (intent-to-treat) populations were 224 and 228 patients in arms A and B, respectively. Median IRF PFS at 28.6 and 25.3 months' median follow-up was 9.0 v 11.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.02; P = .0731) and interim OS was 28.1 v 36.1 months (hazard ratio, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.51 to 0.90). The most common adverse events (all grades; incidence of ≥ 10% in either arm and ≥ 5% difference between arms) were hand-foot syndrome, nausea, and neutropenia in arm A, and diarrhea, rash, and nasopharyngitis in arm B. Conclusion The addition of pertuzumab to trastuzumab and capecitabine did not significantly improve IRF PFS. An 8-month increase in median OS to 36.1 months with pertuzumab was observed. Statistical significance for OS cannot be claimed because of the hierarchical testing of OS after the primary PFS end point; however, the magnitude of OS difference is in keeping with prior experience of pertuzumab in metastatic breast cancer. No new safety signals were identified.

Efficacy and safety of low-dose capecitabine plus docetaxel versus single-agent docetaxel in patients with anthracycline-pretreated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: results from the randomized phase III JO21095 trial

PURPOSE

The randomized phase III JO21095 trial compared the efficacy and safety of low-dose capecitabine plus docetaxel combination therapy (XT) versus single-agent administration of docetaxel in anthracycline-pretreated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

Patients were randomized to either low-dose XT (capecitabine 825 mg/m² twice daily, days 1-14; docetaxel 60 mg/m², day 1 every 3 weeks) or docetaxel (70 mg/m², day 1 every 3 weeks). The primary objective was to demonstrate superior progression-free survival (PFS) with low-dose XT versus single-agent docetaxel. Overall survival (OS) and safety were secondary endpoints.

RESULTS

In total, 162 patients were treated. Median PFS was 10.5 months with low-dose XT and 9.8 months with single-agent docetaxel (hazard ratio [HR] 0.62 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.40-0.97]; p = 0.03). The OS HR was 0.89 (95% CI 0.52-1.53; p = 0.68). Grade ≥3 treatment-related toxicities occurred in 74% of XT-treated patients and 76% of docetaxel-treated patients. The main differences in grade ≥3 treatment-related toxicities were hand-foot syndrome (7.3% of XT-treated patients vs 0% receiving docetaxel), fatigue/malaise (2.4 vs 10.0%), and peripheral edema (1.2 vs 7.5%). Dose modifications were required in 100% of low-dose XT and 49% of docetaxel patients. Toxicity-related treatment discontinuations occurred in 18 and 33%, respectively.

CONCLUSION

The improved PFS with low-dose XT versus docetaxel alone is consistent with higher-dose XT phase III experience, but the safety profile was more favorable and manageable.

Bevacizumab plus paclitaxel versus bevacizumab plus capecitabine as first-line treatment for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer (TURANDOT): primary endpoint results of a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority, phase 3 trial

BACKGROUND

The randomised phase 3 TURANDOT trial compared two approved bevacizumab-containing regimens for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer in terms of efficacy, safety, and quality of life. The interim analysis did not confirm non-inferior overall survival (stratified hazard ratio [HR] 1·04; 97·5% repeated CI [RCI] -∞ to 1·69). Here we report final results of our study aiming to show non-inferior overall survival with first-line bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

METHODS

In this multinational, open-label, randomised phase 3 TURANDOT trial, patients aged 18 years or older who had an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status 0-2 and measurable or non-measurable HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer who had received no previous chemotherapy for locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer were stratified and randomly assigned (1:1) using permuted blocks of size six to either bevacizumab plus paclitaxel (bevacizumab 10 mg/kg on days 1 and 15 plus paclitaxel 90 mg/m(2) on days 1, 8, and 15 every 4 weeks) or bevacizumab plus capecitabine (bevacizumab 15 mg/kg on day 1 plus capecitabine 1000 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks) until disease progression, unacceptable toxicity, or withdrawal of consent. Stratification factors were oestrogen or progesterone receptor status, country, and menopausal status. The primary objective was to show non-inferior overall survival with bevacizumab plus capecitabine versus bevacizumab plus paclitaxel in the per-protocol population by rejecting the null hypothesis of inferiority (HR ≥1·33) using a stratified Cox proportional hazard model. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00600340.

FINDINGS

Between Sept 10, 2008, and Aug 30, 2010, 564 patients were randomised, representing the intent-to-treat population. The per-protocol population comprised 531 patients (266 in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group and 265 in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group). At the final overall survival analysis after 183 deaths (69%) in 266 patients receiving bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and 201 (76%) in 265 receiving bevacizumab plus capecitabine in the per-protocol population, median overall survival was 30·2 months (95% CI 25·6-32·6 months) versus 26·1 months (22·3-29·0), respectively. The stratified HR was 1·02 (97·5% RCI -∞ to 1·26; repeated p=0·0070), indicating non-inferiority. The unstratified Cox model (HR 1·13 [97·5% RCI -∞ to 1·39]; repeated p=0·061) did not support the primary analysis. Intent-to-treat analyses were consistent with the per-protocol results. The most common grade 3 or worse adverse events were neutropenia (54 [19%] of 284 patients in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group vs 5 [2%] of 277 patients in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group), hand-foot syndrome (1 [<1%] vs 43 [16%]), peripheral neuropathy (39 [14%] vs 1 [<1%]), leucopenia (20 [7%] vs 1 [<1%]), and hypertension (12 [4%] vs 16 [6%]). Serious adverse events were reported in 65 (23%) of 284 patients receiving bevacizumab plus paclitaxel and 68 (25%) of 277 receiving bevacizumab plus capecitabine. Deaths in two (1%) of 284 patients in the bevacizumab plus paclitaxel group were deemed by the investigator to be treatment-related. No treatment-related deaths occurred in the bevacizumab plus capecitabine group.

INTERPRETATION

Bevacizumab plus capecitabine represents a valid first-line treatment option for HER2-negative locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, offering good tolerability without compromising overall survival compared with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel. Although progression-free survival with the bevacizumab plus capecitabine combination is inferior to that noted with bevacizumab plus paclitaxel, we suggest that physicians should consider possible predictive risk factors for overall survival, individual's treatment priorities, and the differing safety profiles.

FUNDING

Roche.

Comparison of the effectiveness and toxicity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens, capecitabine/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide vs 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide, followed by adjuvant, capecitabine/docetaxel vs docetaxel, in patients with operable breast cancer

The aim of this study was to compare the effectiveness and toxicity of neoadjuvant chemotherapy regimens, xeloda/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (XEC) vs 5-fluorouracil/epirubicin/cyclophosphamide (FEC), followed by adjuvant chemotherapy regimens, capecitabine/taxotere (XT) vs taxotere (T), in axillary lymph node (LN)-positive early-stage breast cancer. In this randomized, Phase III trial, 137 patients with operable primary breast cancer (T2-0, N0-1) who were tested axillary LN positive through aspiration biopsy of axillary LNs were randomized (1:1) to four 3-weekly cycles of XEC or FEC. Patients underwent surgery within 4-6 weeks after the fourth cycle, followed by four adjuvant cycles of 3-weekly XT or T. The primary end point was tumor pathological complete response. Toxicity profiles were secondary objectives. In total, 131 patients had clinical and radiological evaluation of response and underwent surgery. Treatment with XEC led to an increased rate of pathological complete response in primary tumor (18% vs 6%, respectively, P=0.027) and objective remission rate (87% vs 73%, P=0.048) compared to FEC. Clinical complete response occurred in 20% and 7% for XEC and FEC, respectively. Compared to FEC, XEC was associated with more hand-foot syndrome (57% vs 11%, P<0.001) and 3/4 grade nausea/vomiting/diarrhea (30% vs 14%, P=0.034) but less phlebitis (3% vs 14%, P=0.035). XT and T adjuvant chemotherapy regimens were well tolerated: treatment-related 3/4 grade adverse events occurred in 28% and 17% of patients receiving XT and T, respectively.

Decreased gastrointestinal toxicity associated with a novel capecitabine schedule (7 days on and 7 days off): a systematic review

Capecitabine is widely used in the management of metastatic breast cancer; however, drug delivery is limited by gastrointestinal and other toxicity. We employed mathematical modeling to rationally design an optimized dose and schedule for capecitabine of 2,000 mg twice daily, flat dosing, 7 days on, 7 days off. Preclinical data suggested increased efficacy and tolerability with this novel dosing, and three early-phase clinical trials have suggested a favorable toxicity profile. To further define the tolerability of this regimen, we conducted a systematic review of the gastrointestinal adverse events of patients on these studies. This review demonstrated a favorable gastrointestinal toxicity profile with capecitabine in this novel schedule when given as single agent or in combination therapy with either bevacizumab or lapatinib. No patients discontinued therapy for gastrointestinal toxicity, and there were no grade 4 or 5 gastrointestinal toxicities reported. Grade 3 or greater diarrhea occurred in two (2%); grade 2 or greater mucositis, constipation, and vomiting were reported in three (4%) patients. We conclude that capecitabine administered on a 7 days on, 7 days off schedule has limited gastrointestinal toxicity. Our methodology was based on an analysis of individual patient toxicity data from one phase I single-agent capecitabine and two phase II capecitabine combination studies (with bevacizumab and lapatinib, respectively), focusing specifically on gastrointestinal toxicity.

Efficacy and safety of capecitabine-based first-line chemotherapy in advanced or metastatic breast cancer: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

We sought to evaluate the efficacy and safety of capecitabine-based therapy as first-line chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer. Randomised controlled trials of capecitabine monotherapy or combined treatment were included in the meta-analysis. PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library database and important meeting summaries were searched systematically. Outcomes were progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and grades 3-4 drug-related adverse events.Nine trials with 1798 patients were included. The results indicated a significant improvement with capecitabine-based chemotherapy compared with capecitabine-free chemotherapy in ORR (relative risk [RR] 1.14, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.03 to 1.26, P = 0.013) and PFS (hazard ratio [HR] 0.77, 95% CI 0.69 to 0.87, P < 0.0001). Overall survival favoured capecitabine-based chemotherapy, but this was not significant. There were more incidences of neutropenia and neutropenic fever in the capecitabine-free chemotherapy group and more vomiting, diarrhoea and hand-foot syndrome in the capecitabine-based chemotherapy group. There were no significant differences in nausea, fatigue, cardiotoxicity or mucositis/stomatitis between the two treatment regimens.Capecitabine-based chemotherapy significantly improves ORR and PFS in patients with advanced breast cancer, but has no demonstrable impact on OS. Capecitabine-based regimens are suitable as first-line treatment for patients with advanced breast cancer.

Effects of gender on capecitabine toxicity in colorectal cancer

BACKGROUND

Capecitabine is a highly water soluble prodrug of 5-fluorouracil that is dosed by patient body surface area. Body surface area dosing makes no allowances for differences in body composition. There is mounting evidence that lean body mass is a better predictor of toxicity than body surface area for drugs which distribute into the lean compartment. Because women, on average, have lower lean body mass than men, we expect that women would experience a higher incidence of toxicity than men when body surface area dosing is used.

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether female colorectal cancer patients experienced a higher incidence of dose-limiting toxicity than men when treated with adjuvant capecitabine.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective chart review of colorectal cancer patients treated with adjuvant capecitabine at our institute between 2008 and 2012. Patients receiving capecitabine were identified from the pharmacy dispensing database and then screened for inclusion. Dosing and toxicity information were gathered and dose-limiting toxicity incidence (defined as a composite endpoint of dose delay, dose reduction, or discontinuation of therapy) was compared between males and females using the chi-square test. Binary logistic regression analysis was then performed to account for differences between male and female populations.

RESULTS

A total of 299 patients (163 males, 136 females) met inclusion criteria. Females had a significantly higher dose-limiting toxicity incidence than males (67.7 vs. 52.2%, p = 0.007). Relationships between gender and dose-limiting toxicity incidence remained significant after logistic regression analysis (OR: 2.04; 95% CI: 1.23-3.36).

CONCLUSION

Female colorectal cancer patients experience a higher dose-limiting toxicity incidence than male patients when given adjuvant capecitabine dosed according to body surface area.

Phase III open-label randomized study of eribulin mesylate versus capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane

Purpose

This phase III randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00337103) compared eribulin with capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC).

Patients and Methods

Women with MBC who had received prior anthracycline- and taxane-based therapy were randomly assigned to receive eribulin or capecitabine as their first-, second-, or third-line chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic disease. Stratification factors were human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status and geographic region. Coprimary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

Median OS times for eribulin (n = 554) and capecitabine (n = 548) were 15.9 and 14.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.00; P = .056). Median PFS times for eribulin and capecitabine were 4.1 and 4.2 months, respectively (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.25; P = .30). Objective response rates were 11.0% for eribulin and 11.5% for capecitabine. Global health status and overall quality-of-life scores over time were similar in the treatment arms. Both treatments had manageable safety profiles consistent with their known adverse effects; most adverse events were grade 1 or 2.

Conclusion

In this phase III study, eribulin was not shown to be superior to capecitabine with regard to OS or PFS.

Metronomics: towards personalized chemotherapy?

Since its inception in 2000, metronomic chemotherapy has undergone major advances as an antiangiogenic therapy. The discovery of the pro-immune properties of chemotherapy and its direct effects on cancer cells has established the intrinsic multitargeted nature of this therapeutic approach. The past 10 years have seen a marked rise in clinical trials of metronomic chemotherapy, and it is increasingly combined in the clinic with conventional treatments, such as maximum-tolerated dose chemotherapy and radiotherapy, as well as with novel therapeutic strategies, such as drug repositioning, targeted agents and immunotherapy. We review the latest advances in understanding the complex mechanisms of action of metronomic chemotherapy, and the recently identified factors associated with disease resistance. We comprehensively discuss the latest clinical data obtained from studies performed in both adult and paediatric populations, and highlight ongoing clinical trials. In this Review, we foresee the future developments of metronomic chemotherapy and specifically its potential role in the era of personalized medicine.

A retrospective study evaluating a fixed low dose capecitabine monotherapy in women with HER-2 negative metastatic breast cancer

To determine if a low fixed dosing strategy of capecitabine would produce comparable clinical activity with less adverse toxicities compared to published data with higher doses in the setting of metastatic breast cancer (mBC). We retrospectively analyzed patients treated with a low fixed dose of capecitabine (CAPE-L) at 1,000 mg twice daily for 14 days every 21 days. Outcomes included clinical benefit rate (CBR), overall response rates (ORR), time to progression (TTP), and overall survival (OS). A historical comparison group of mBC patients treated on 12 prior trials at the package-insert dose of capecitabine (n = 1,949) was utilized. Eighty-six patients were analyzed in our cohort. Positive hormone receptor status (79.1 vs. 50.6 %), and capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy (44.2 vs. 16.5 %) were more frequent in our cohort relative to the historical comparison. The median starting dose in our cohort was 633.5 mg/m(2). The CBR was similar between the CAPE-L and the standard dose cohorts (55.8 vs. 49.5 %), as was ORR (24.3 vs. 24 %), and median TTP (7 mo, 95 % CI 5.5-8.5 vs. 5.1 mo, 95 % CI 4.5-5.7). Median OS was longer in our cohort (24 mo, 95 % CI 16.8-31.2) than the historic standard dose cohort (12.1 mo, 95 % CI 9.6-14.4), a difference that was likely explained by the higher proportion of patients in the CAPE-L cohort who received capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy and who had hormone receptor positive disease. As expected, adverse events were less frequent with CAPE-L. We found that CAPE-L, which translates into a dose of 600-650 mg/m(2), appeared to have good clinical efficacy and acceptable toxicity.

Simulations to Assess Phase II Noninferiority Trials of Different Doses of Capecitabine in Combination With Docetaxel for Metastatic Breast Cancer

A phase II trial in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) (NO16853) failed to show noninferiority (progression-free survival, PFS) of capecitabine 825 mg/m² plus docetaxel 75 mg/m² to the registered capecitabine dose of 1,250 mg/m² plus docetaxel 75 mg/m². We developed a modeling framework based on NO16853 and the pivotal phase III MBC study, SO14999, to characterize the link between capecitabine dose, tumor growth, PFS, and survival to simulate response to a range of capecitabine doses and determine a minimum capecitabine dose noninferior to 1,250 mg/m². Simulation showed NO16853 had little power to demonstrate noninferiority (69%). The power reached 80% with a 1,000 mg/m² starting dose and an increased number of PFS events. A starting dose of 1,000 mg/m² could be established as noninferior in terms of efficacy to the registered dose in the second-line MBC setting, with a potentially improved safety, in line with medical practice.

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

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

Advances in the management of metastatic breast cancer: options beyond first-line chemotherapy

This article provides an overview of recent advances in chemotherapy that may be used for the treatment of patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Key phase ii and iii trial data for eribulin mesylate, ixabepilone, and nab-paclitaxel, published since 2006, are discussed on the basis of recency, depth, and quality.Eribulin mesylate is the first monotherapy to significantly increase overall survival in patients with pretreated MBC, but nab-paclitaxel offers a novel and safer mode of delivery in comparison with standard taxanes. By contrast, the use of ixabepilone will be limited for now, until the associated neurotoxicity can be better managed. Alongside a brief overview of the other major chemotherapies currently in use, we have aimed to provide a Canadian context for how these novel agents may be integrated into clinical practice.

Randomized phase II non-inferiority study (NO16853) of two different doses of capecitabine in combination with docetaxel for locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

This phase II study investigated whether a lower-than-approved dose of capecitabine, plus docetaxel (XT), would improve tolerability versus standard-dose XT without compromising efficacy.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Women aged ≥18 years with locally advanced/metastatic breast cancer resistant to anthracycline-based chemotherapy in the (neo)adjuvant, first- or second-line metastatic setting were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to receive standard-dose XT (capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) twice daily, days 1-14; docetaxel 75 mg/m(2), day 1 every 3 weeks) or low-dose XT (capecitabine 825 mg/m(2) twice daily, days 1-14; docetaxel as above). The primary objective was to demonstrate non-inferiority of low-dose to standard-dose XT in terms of progression-free survival (PFS).

RESULTS

470 patients were randomly allocated in a 1 : 1 ratio to standard-dose or low-dose XT. Median PFS was 7.9 versus 5.8 months [hazard ratio 1.16, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.95-1.43] in the standard-dose and low-dose arms, respectively. The upper limit of the 95% CI was above the predefined non-inferiority margin (1.35, P = 0.078). Secondary efficacy end points were consistent with PFS. The frequency and severity of adverse events was similar in both treatment arms.

CONCLUSIONS

Non-inferiority of low-dose to standard-dose XT in terms of PFS was not demonstrated; this may be due to regional subgroup effects.

Combining capecitabine and bevacizumab in metastatic breast cancer: a comprehensive review

Both capecitabine and bevacizumab are established agents in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, but until recently clinical data supporting their use in combination were limited. We review available data on the capecitabine-bevacizumab combination in breast cancer, particularly results from the RIBBON-1 trial in the first-line setting, and we discuss these findings in light of previous studies. We also examine ongoing trials investigating capecitabine-bevacizumab combination therapy.

Capecitabine versus classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer

PURPOSE

We compared oral capecitabine, administered intermittently or continuously, versus classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF) as first-line chemotherapy for women with advanced breast cancer unsuited to more intensive regimens.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Three hundred twenty-three eligible women were randomly assigned to capecitabine administered intermittently (1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily for 14 of every 21 days; n = 107) or continuously (650 mg/m(2) twice daily for 21 of every 21 days; n = 107), or to classical CMF (oral cyclophosphamide 100 mg/m(2) days 1 to 14 with intravenous methotrexate 40 mg/m(2) and fluorouracil 600 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 every 28 days; n = 109). The primary end point was quality-adjusted progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included PFS, overall survival (OS), objective tumor response, and adverse events. Intermittent and continuous capecitabine were to be compared first and, if similar (P > .05), combined for definitive comparisons versus CMF.

RESULTS

Quality-adjusted PFS (P = .2), objective tumor response rate (20%; P = .8), and PFS (median, 6 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.86; 95% CI, 0.67 to 1.10; P = .2) were similar in women assigned capecitabine versus CMF. OS was longer in women assigned capecitabine rather than CMF (median, 22 v 18 months; HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.94; P = .02). Febrile neutropenia, infection, stomatitis, and serious adverse events were more common with CMF; hand-foot syndrome was more common with capecitabine.

CONCLUSION

Capecitabine improved OS by being similarly active, less toxic, and more tolerable than CMF. Capecitabine is a good first-line chemotherapy option for women with advanced breast cancer who are unsuited to more intensive regimens.

A GINECO randomized phase II trial of two capecitabine and weekly paclitaxel schedules in metastatic breast cancer

To determine whether capecitabine schedule adaptation improves the tolerability of capecitabine-paclitaxel combination therapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC), patients with anthracycline-pretreated HER2-negative MBC were randomized to either arm A (21-day cycles: capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily, days 1-14; paclitaxel 60 mg/m(2), days 1, 8, and 15) or arm B (28-day cycles: capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily, days 1-5, 8-12, and 15-19; paclitaxel 80 mg/m(2), days 1, 8, and 15). The primary endpoint was the incidence of dose reductions or delays >1 week for grade 3/4 toxicity. Secondary endpoints were efficacy and safety. All 130 randomized patients were evaluable for safety. Dose reduction or delay for grade 3/4 toxicity occurred in 39% of patients in arm A and 34% in arm B during cycles 1-6. In arm A, there were significantly more toxicity-related dose reductions (cycles 1-6: 82 vs. 67%, respectively; P = 0.05) and discontinuations (29 vs. 8%, respectively). Grade 3 diarrhea occurred in 12 and 0%, respectively, and grade 3 hand-foot syndrome in 12 versus 9%, respectively (grade 4 not applicable). There were no detectable differences in efficacy. Weekday capecitabine dosing with weekly paclitaxel may improve tolerability without a detrimental effect on efficacy, and merits further evaluation in patients suited to combination chemotherapy.