First efficacy results of capecitabine with anthracycline- and taxane-based adjuvant therapy in high-risk early breast cancer: a meta-analysis

Treatment for Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: An Umbrella Review of Meta-Analyses

Purpose

In recent years, many meta-analyses of triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) treatment have been published; however, these studies still lack systematic summary. Therefore, the aim of this study is to summarize and evaluate the evidence level and efficacy of treatment for TNBC.

Materials and Methods

Retrospective and prospective studies on treatment of TNBC were searched in the PubMed, Embase, and Cochrane Library databases. The literature search deadline was June 30, 2021. Two investigators independently screened the literature and extracted the data. In addition, the joint World Health Organization–United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization expert consultation was used to evaluate the validity of the evidence.

Results

A total of 28 meta-analyses were included in this study. The treatment interventions for TNBC mainly included surgery, chemotherapy (CT), radiotherapy, molecular targeted therapy, immunotherapy, zoledronic acid, and gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) analog. Platinum improves the pathological complete response (PCR) rate of patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NACT), the objective remission rate (ORR) and overall survival (OS) in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer. Capecitabine improves disease-free survival (DFS) and OS in patients treated with adjuvant CT. Bevacizumab was added to NACT to improve the PCR rate in patients. Immunotherapy improves the PCR rate in patients treated with NACT. The improvement in PCR rate in patients with high Ki67 expression treated with neoadjuvant therapy is highly suggestive. Other interventions had suggestive or weak evidence.

Conclusion

Among the strategies for treating TNBC, platinum, bevacizumab, and immunotherapy can lead to better PCR rates as part of a NACT regimen. Capecitabine as adjuvant CT and platinum in the treatment of metastatic TNBC can benefit patients’ survival. However, the effectiveness of other interventions for TNBC is not yet clear. Further research is needed in the future to obtain more reliable clinical evidence.

Appraising the quality of meta-analysis for breast cancer treatment in the adjuvant setting: A systematic review

INTRODUCTION

Breast cancer is the tumor with highest incidence in women worldwide and adjuvant treatment is extremely important to achieve disease control. Given the relevance of systematic reviews, their rigor should be warranted to avoid biased conclusions. Our objective was to investigate the methodological quality of meta-analysis of early breast cancer adjuvant treatment.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

Comprehensive searches were performed using electronic databases from 1/1/2007 to 11/12/2018. All studies identified as a systematic review with meta-analysis investigating the efficacy of breast cancer adjuvant treatments were included. Two reviewers independently assessed titles and abstracts, then full-texts for eligibility. Quality was assessed using the Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) version 2 tool.

RESULTS

Of 950 citations retrieved, 66 studies (7.0%) were deemed eligible. Methodological quality was highly variable, median AMSTAR score 8.5 (IQR 7-9.5) and range 0-16. There was a weak positive correlation between journal impact factor and AMSTAR score (r = 0.17) and citation rate and AMSTAR score (r = 0.16). Cochrane Systematic Reviews were of higher quality than reviews from other journals. Overall confidence was critically low for 61 (92.4%) studies, and the least well-reported domains were the statement of conflict of interest and funding source for the included studies (4.6%), the report of a pre-defined study protocol (15.2%), and the description of details of excluded studies (6.1%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings reinforce concerns about the design, conduction and interpretation of meta-analysis in current literature. Methodological quality should be carefully considered and journal editors, decision makers and readers in general, must follow a critical approach to this studies.

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.

Comparison of capecitabine-based regimens with platinum-based regimens in Chinese triple-negative breast cancer patients with liver metastasis

Background

Capecitabine-based chemotherapy (CBC) presents potential value in patients with liver metastasis; platinum-based chemotherapy (PBC) has shown promising benefit in patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). For TNBC patients with liver metastasis, which treatment strategy is better remains to be further studied. The aim of this study was to report the first real-world data evaluating the efficacy and safety of PBC versus CBC in the first-line treatment in Chinese TNBC patients with liver metastasis.

Methods

TNBC patients with liver metastasis pretreated with anthracyclines/taxanes in 4 institutions of China between January 2010 and December 2019 were included. Objective response rate (ORR), overall survival, treatment pattern, and toxicity profile were assessed between PBC and CBC groups.

Results

A total of 59 TNBC patients with liver metastasis were identified. Among these, 33 were treated with PBC and 26 were treated with CBC. The ORR was higher in the CBC group than in the PBC group (57.7% versus 30.3%, P=0.035). Median overall survival was also greatly improved (19.2 versus 14.4 months, P=0.041). Docetaxel/cisplatin was more likely to be used for PBC, and paclitaxel/capecitabine was the main regimen for CBC. Multivariable Cox regression analysis indicated that CBC was an independent predictor for overall survival after adjustment for baseline factors including age, tumor size, nodal status, prior anthracyclines/taxanes use, and tumor grade (odds ratio =0.51; 95% confidence interval, 0.27-0.98; P=0.042). Adverse events were not different except gastrointestinal tract toxicities, hand-foot syndrome and hematologic toxicity.

Conclusions

For TNBC patients with liver metastasis, capecitabin-based chemotherapy might be more suitable than the platinum-based regimen in the first-line treatment, as measured by objective response rate and overall survival. Further large-scale studies are warranted.

Optimal Systemic Treatment for Early Triple-Negative Breast Cancer

BACKGROUND

Approximately 10-15% of all breast tumors are triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC). TNBC have a higher risk of relapse and distant metastases compared to other subtypes. The optimal systemic management of TNBC according to national and international guidelines is discussed herein.

SUMMARY

Anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy for patients with TNBC either in the neoadjuvant (NACT) or the adjuvant setting is considered standard of care. Exceptions are small tumors and a low-risk histology, in which chemotherapy can be spared. Dose-dense therapy is more effective in preventing recurrence and increasing survival. The use of nab-paclitaxel instead of a solvent-based taxane can lead to higher pathological complete response (pCR) rates and better outcomes. Platinum agents are effective in increasing pCR when added to anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy at the cost of increased toxicity. Long-term outcome data are lacking. In patients without a pCR, capecitabine leads to improved outcomes.

KEY MESSAGES

The standard treatment approach of TNBC is anthracycline/taxane-based chemotherapy, preferably within the NACT setting. Dose-dense schedules as well as platinum should be considered in the NACT setting. For patients without a pCR, capecitabine is an option to improve the outcome. The role of nab-paclitaxel is under debate. In case of immunogenic tumors, checkpoint inhibitors are promising new agents that merit further investigation.

Addition of Capecitabine in Breast Cancer First-line Chemotherapy Improves Survival of Breast Cancer Patients

Objective: Capecitabine is an antimetabolic fluoropyrimidine deoxynucleoside carbamate drug that can be converted to 5-FU in vivo. Currently, the role of capecitabine in the treatment of advanced breast cancer has been recognized. Also, Several meta-analyses have elucidated the role of capecitabine in the treatment of breast cancer, indicating that taxane-based regimen with capecitabine may be an effective, convenient, and well tolerated regimen in patients with early breast cancer. However, the correlation between capecitabine-based combination first-line chemotherapy and breast cancer survival remains unclear. Here, we present a meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the safety and effectiveness of capecitabine-based combination with first-line chemotherapy treatment in breast cancer. Methods: We searched Pubmed, Embase, and Medline for relevant studies evaluating pooled estimated hazard ratios of capecitabine in breast cancer patients with the eligible criteria up to June 2018. Fixed and random-effect meta-analyses were conducted based on heterogeneity of included studies. Results: Overall, 10 articles with 12,872 patients were included in the meta-analysis. Capecitabine-based combination first-line chemotherapy compared with non-combination had significant impacts on disease-free survival (HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.76-0.93; P = 0.000) and overall survival (HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.74-0.94; P = 0.001). Also, according to the 3 articles concerning neoadjuvant chemotherapy which included 2534 participants, we found that the addition of capecitabine significantly improved OS (HR = 0.89, 95% CI: 0.63-0.86; P = 0.011). In the subgroup analysis, TNBC patients got significant benefits with the addition of capecitabine in DFS (HR = 0.77, 95% CI: 0.65-0.92; P = 0.004) and OS (HR = 0.65, 95% CI: 0.51-0.81; P = 0.000). ER negative patients got significant benefits in OS (HR = 0.73, 95% CI: 0.57-0.93; P = 0.012). The association of DFS with the addition of capecitabine in Her- patients (HR = 0.84, 95% CI: 0.71-0.99; P = 0.005) was significant, as was OS (HR = 0.82, 95% CI: 0.70-0.95; P = 0.009),. Meanwhile, patients receiving capecitabine-based combination first-line chemotherapy underwent less adverse effects especially the grade 3/4 leucopenia than patients with non-combination therapy (RR=0.72 95% CI: 0.59-0.86; P = 0.000). Conclusion: Capecitabine combined with first-line chemotherapy in the treatment of breast cancer is an effective and safe treatment option and is worthy of clinical application to improve survival of breast cancer patients. In the future, we can continue to carry out relevant researches to explore the upmost appropriate dose of capecitabine for breast cancer.

German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-positive Study (GAIN): a phase III trial comparing two dose-dense regimens (iddEPC versus ddEC-PwX) in high-risk early breast cancer patients

Background

Dose-dense (dd) regimens are one of the preferred options for the adjuvant treatment of breast cancer patients with intermediate to high risk. The German Adjuvant Intergroup Node-positive trial aimed at optimizing intense dd (idd) strategies by evaluating drug combinations and the addition of capecitabine.

Patients and methods

Women (aged 18 years and biologically <65 years) with histologically involved axillary lymph nodes were randomly assigned to receive three courses each of epirubicin (E) 150 mg/m2, paclitaxel (P) 225 mg/m2 and cyclophosphamide (C) 2500 mg/m2 (reduced to 2000 mg/m2 after recruitment of 1200 patients) q2w intravenously (i.v.) (iddEPC-regimen) or ddEC (E 112.5 mg/m2 + C 600 mg/m2, i.v. q2w for 4 cycles) followed by paclitaxel weekly (Pw 67.5 mg/m2 i.v. q8d for 10 weeks) plus capecitabine (X 2000 mg/m2 p.o. days 1-14, q22 for 4 cycles) (ddEC-PwX-regimen). Further randomization assigned patients to ibandronate for 2 years versus observation and to pegfilgrastim day 2 versus 4.

Results

From June 2004 to August 2008, 2994 patients were randomized to either iddEPC (N = 1498), or ddEC-PwX (N = 1496) and started treatment. Median age was 50 years; pN1 (37.8%), pN2 (35.3%); pN3 (26.9%); 46.4% were G3 tumors; 76.9% hormone receptor-positive and 22% HER2-positive. After a median follow-up of 74 months, 645 events and 383 deaths were recorded. Hematological adverse events grades 3-4 were more common with iddEPC (P < 0.001), nonhematological with ddEC-PwX (P = 0.04), even if the toxicity profile of the two regimens was different. At 5 years, estimated disease-free survival rates for ddEC-PwX and iddEPC were 81.7% [95% confidence interval (CI) 79.5-83.6] versus 80.2% (95% CI 78.0-82.2). Hazard ratio (HR)=0.95 (95% CI 0.81-1.11, log-rank P = 0.49). Five-year overall survival rates were 89.4% for ddEC-PwX (95% CI 87.7-91.0) and 89.0% for iddEPC (95% CI 87.2-90.6), HR = 0.85 (95% CI 0.69-1.04, log-rank P = 0.10).

Conclusion

Adding capecitabine to ddEC-Pw did not improve outcome in comparison to iddEPC but increased toxicity and should not be recommended for further use.

Evaluation of the clinical benefits of adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy in elderly women with breast cancer: A retrospective study

Capecitabine is orally administered and may be safely and conveniently used in patients with cancer. The antitumor activity of capecitabine in breast cancer was mostly demonstrated in the salvage therapy setting, whereas the effect of adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy in breast cancer remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to evaluate adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy in elderly women with breast cancer. A total of 251 patients were enrolled and survival was compared between elderly breast cancer patients who received adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy and those who received no chemotherapy. Cancer-specific and disease-free survival curves were compared using log-rank tests and survival curves were calculated using the Kaplan-Meier method. Multivariate analyses were conducted using Cox's proportional hazard regression model. There was no significant difference between the clinicopathological characteristics, including age, tumor size, lymph node status, histological grade and hormone status, between patients in the two groups. The breast cancer-specific survival rate was 89.3% in the capecitabine monotherapy group vs. 81.3% in the no chemotherapy group; the difference was not statistically significant (P=0.128). The disease-free survival rate was 81.7% in the capecitabine monotherapy group vs. 65.3% in the no chemotherapy group. Kaplan-Meier analysis indicated a longer disease-free survival in the capecitabine monotherapy group (P=0.015). On Cox regression analysis, capecitabine monotherapy was found to be associated with the disease-free survival rate (P=0.014, hazard ratio=0.500) but not with the cancer-specific survival rate (P=0.181). The adverse events of capecitabine monotherapy were recorded and there was no chemotherapy interruption due to severe adverse reactions. Therefore, adjuvant capecitabine monotherapy in elderly women with breast cancer is a safe and effective option, as well as a viable alternative for elderly breast cancer patients who refuse standard adjuvant therapy.

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.

Novel therapeutic strategies for patients with triple-negative breast cancer

Triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC) represents a very heterogeneous group of breast diseases. Currently, the backbone of therapy for TNBC is mainly chemotherapy as there are no effective specific targeted agents approved to treat TNBC. Despite initial responses to chemotherapy, resistance frequently and rapidly develops and metastatic TNBC has a poor prognosis. Therefore, new targeted strategies are, accordingly, urgently needed. This article discusses the recent developments in targeted agents explored for TNBC, aiming to offer novel therapeutic strategies that can potentially assist in designing personalized therapeutics in the future as well as provide the basis for further research in an attempt to target TNBC.

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.

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.

Construction of multi-gene classifier for prediction of response to and prognosis after neoadjuvant chemotherapy for estrogen receptor positive breast cancers

The aims of this study were to develop a multi-gene expression-based prediction model for pathological complete response (pCR) to neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC) and to evaluate its prognosis prediction for estrogen receptor (ER) positive breast cancers. The training set included the NAC-treated patients (n = 104) with ER+ breast tumors in our hospital and the validation set included the NAC-treated patients (n = 259) with ER+/HER2- breast tumors in the public database (GSE25066). Gene expression in the tumor biopsy specimens obtained before NAC was analyzed with DNA microarray, and the prediction model (MPCP155) for pCR was constructed for the training set by using the genes (155 probes) involved in the metabolic pathways which the pathway analysis identified as being significantly associated with pathological response. With MPCP155, the tumors in the validation set could be classified into low chemo-sensitive (low-CS) (pCR rate = 2.6%) and high-CS (pCR rate = 15.3%; P = 0.0006) groups. Furthermore, the low-CS group showed a significantly better prognosis than the high-CS group (P = 2.0E-6). Moreover, prognosis prediction by MPCP155 was independent of the residual cancer burden score. MPCP155 may be helpful for decision making regarding the indication for neoadjuvant chemotherapy. In addition, MPCP155 was found to be useful for prognosis prediction for NAC-treated patients with ER+/HER2- tumors.

Women with large (≥3 cm) and locally advanced breast cancers (T3, 4, N1, 2, M0) receiving neoadjuvant chemotherapy (NAC: cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, docetaxel): addition of capecitabine improves 4-year disease-free survival

Purpose

To determine whether capecitabine (X), combined with docetaxel (T) following doxorubicin (A) and cyclophosphamide (C), enhanced the pathological complete response (pCR) in the breast and axillary lymph nodes (ALNs) of women with large or locally advanced breast cancers (LLABCs) improving outcome, and the effect on quality of life (QoL).

Patients and methods

117 women were enrolled, 112 randomised to 2 cycles of AC (60 mg/m², 600 mg/m²) given 3 weekly. Tumour responses were assessed by magnetic resonance mammography. Responders (n = 77) received 2 further cycles of AC and were randomised to 4 cycles of T (100 mg/m²) (Group A) or T (75 mg/m²) and X (2000 mg/m²/day), day one to 14 of each 3 weekly cycle (Group B). Non-responders (n = 35) were randomised to 6 cycles of T (Group C) or T + X (Group D). QoL questionnaires were completed at each chemotherapy visit. Pathological responses were evaluated using established criteria.

Results

The groups were comparable in patient and tumour characteristics (79.5% T2, 85.7% ductal, 73.2% ER +ve, 22.3% HER2 +ve, 42% involved ALNs). Overall breast pCR was 27.1%, Groups A + C versus B + D (p = 0.446). ALN +ve pCR was 41.9%, Groups A + C versus B + D (p = 0.231). 4-year disease-free survival (DFS) was significantly improved with X (p = 0.016) but not overall survival (p = 0.056). Triple -ve and HER2 +ve tumours, and persistent ALN disease were risk factors for metastases. X increased severe nail changes (p = 0.0002) and hand-foot syndrome (p = 0.014) without affecting QoL.

Conclusion

NAC-X did not increase breast and ALN pCR but improved 4-year DFS, without detriment to QoL.

Outcome of patients with HER2-positive breast cancer treated with or without adjuvant trastuzumab in the Finland Capecitabine Trial (FinXX)

Background.

Little information is available about survival outcomes of patients with HER2-positive early breast cancer treated with adjuvant capecitabine-containing chemotherapy with or without trastuzumab.

Patients and methods.

One thousand and five hundred patients with early breast cancer were entered to the Finland Capecitabine trial (FinXX) between January 2004 and May 2007, and were randomly assigned to receive either three cycles of adjuvant TX (docetaxel, capecitabine) followed by three cycles of CEX (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, capecitabine; TX-CEX) or three cycles of docetaxel followed by three cycles of CEF (cyclophosphamide, epirubicin, fluorouracil; T-CEF). The primary endpoint was recurrence-free survival (RFS). The study protocol was amended in May 2005 while study accrual was ongoing to allow adjuvant trastuzumab for patients with HER2-positive cancer. Of the 284 patients with HER2-positive cancer accrued to FinXX, 176 (62.0%) received trastuzumab after amending the study protocol, 131 for 12 months and 45 for nine weeks. The median follow-up time was 6.7 years.

Results.

Patients with HER2-positive cancer who received trastuzumab had better RFS than those who did not (five-year RFS 89.2% vs. 75.9%; HR 0.41, 95% CI 0.23–0.72; p = 0.001). Patients treated with trastuzumab for 12 months or nine weeks had similar RFS. There was no significant interaction between trastuzumab administration and the type of chemotherapy. Four (2.3%) patients treated with trastuzumab had heart failure or left ventricular dysfunction, three of these received capecitabine.

Conclusion.

Adjuvant trastuzumab improves RFS of patients treated with TX-CEX or T-CEF. Few patients had cardiac failure.

Survival after adding capecitabine and trastuzumab to neoadjuvant anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy for primary breast cancer (GBG 40--GeparQuattro)

BACKGROUND

The GeparQuattro study showed that adding capecitabine or prolonging the duration of anthracycline-taxane-based neoadjuvant chemotherapy from 24 to 36 weeks did not increase pathological complete response (pCR) rates. Trastuzumab-treated patients with HER2-positive disease showed a higher pCR rate than patients with HER2-negative disease treated with chemotherapy alone. We here present disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) analyses.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Patients (n = 1495) with cT ≥ 3 tumors, or negative hormone-receptor status, or positive hormone-receptor and clinically node-positive disease received four times epirubicin/cyclophosphamide and were thereafter randomly assigned to four times docetaxel (Taxotere), or four times docetaxel/capecitabine over 24 weeks, or four times docetaxel followed by capecitabine over 36 weeks. Patients with HER2-positive tumors received 1 year of trastuzumab, starting with the first chemotherapy cycle. Follow-up was available for a median of 5.4 years.

RESULTS

Outcome was not improved for patients receiving capecitabine (HR 0.92; P = 0.463 for DFS and HR 93; P = 0.618 for OS) as well as for patients receiving 36 weeks of chemotherapy (HR 0.97; P = 0.818 for DFS and HR 0.97; P = 0.825 for OS). Trastuzumab-treated patients with HER2-positive disease showed similar DFS (P = 0.305) but a significantly better adjusted OS (P = 0.040) when compared with patients with HER2-negative disease treated with chemotherapy alone. Recorded long-term cardiac toxicity was low.

CONCLUSIONS

Long-term results, similar to the results of pCR, do not support the use of capecitabine in the neoadjuvant setting in addition to an anthracycline-taxane-based chemotherapy. However, the results support previous data showing a benefit of trastuzumab as predicted by higher pCR rates.