Quality of Life of Early Stage Breast Cancer Patients 65 Years Old or Older Randomized to Standard Chemotherapy or Capecitabine: A Cancer and Leukemia Group B Study (CALGB 49907)

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.

Quality-of-life considerations in the treatment of early-stage breast cancer in the elderly

Breast cancer is a common tumour in the elderly population and management of early disease in particular is a major challenge for oncologists and geriatricians alike. An important aspect is a differentiated knowledge about the short-term effects and long-term perspectives regarding levels of functioning and subjective well-being associated with different treatment strategies. The article focuses on available quality-of-life (QOL) measurement instruments in elderly patients with early breast cancer and the impact of various local or systemic treatments on QOL scores. A selective literature search was carried out in the PubMed database from January 2000 to May 2010 using the terms 'early breast cancer', 'elderly' and 'quality of life'. Contributions to international congresses on breast cancer in 2009 were also included. Of the 80 articles retrieved, 46 publications were excluded from further consideration due to failure to fulfil inclusion criteria (e.g. not restricted to the elderly, inclusion of patients with metastatic disease, no adjuvant treatment). Sixteen papers focusing on complementary treatment were also rejected. The remaining 18 articles were extensively reviewed. The selection of described QOL measurements was very heterogeneous in these 18 studies. Commonly used QOL instruments were the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QOL questionnaires (EORTC QLQ-C30, EORTC QLQ-BR23) and the Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy questionnaires (FACT-G, FACT-B) and its subscales. Additionally, the Medical Outcomes Study 36-Item Short-Form Health Survey (MOS-SF-36), the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) and the International Breast Cancer Study Group (IBCSG) approach were used by various study groups. The general limitations of QOL assessment in the elderly population are discussed in the review. Surgery, when considered from a technical point of view, does not differ significantly with patient age. Furthermore, age in itself should not be a contraindication to breast-conserving surgery (BCS) because QOL appears somewhat better after conservative surgical treatment. Avoiding axillary surgery and undergoing sentinel lymph node dissection in elderly patients are both associated with better short-term QOL. However, conventional axillary surgery has little effect on long-term QOL in older women. The advent of innovative radiotherapy techniques has resulted in marked improvements in short-term tolerability together with reductions in the incidence and severity of late normal tissue damage. A potential alternative to conventional postoperative radiotherapy after BCS in the future is the intraoperative radiotherapy technique. Chemotherapy has considerable effects on QOL in breast cancer patients. Most studies found that overall QOL was maintained or improved in patients receiving either aromatase inhibitors or tamoxifen but patients reported different adverse effects. For the majority of older breast cancer survivors, cancer-specific well-being and general emotional health do not change substantially after a breast cancer diagnosis. In summary, issues related to baseline co-morbidities in frail elderly, the adverse effects of novel chemotherapeutic agents (e.g. nanoparticle albumin-bound paclitaxel) or target drugs (biologicals) and compliance in the elderly population should receive more attention in evaluations of QOL in elderly breast cancer patients. Future studies that include QOL measurements should also provide details on the data collection and quality control methodologies used.