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

Apatinib plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who failed first/second-line treatment: the NAN trial

While therapies such as chemotherapy combined with immunotherapy, sacituzumab govitecan, and PARP inhibitors are available for metastatic TNBC, on disease progression after these therapies, the mainstay of therapy is chemotherapy. Apatinib is a small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor that has promising anti-angiogenesis and antitumor activity for TNBC. We aimed to evaluate the safety and efficacy of adding apatinib to chemotherapy in patients with advanced TNBC with failed first/second-line treatment. A total of 66 patients were randomly assigned, in a 1:1 ratio, to receive vinorelbine or vinorelbine with apatinib in 28-day cycles. The primary endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS), overall response rate (ORR) and safety. 33 received apatinib plus vinorelbine and 32 received vinorelbine (1 was withdrawal). Median PFS was significantly longer in the apatinib plus vinorelbine group than in the vinorelbine group (3.9 months vs. 2.0 months; hazard ratio, 1.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 3.11; P = 0.026). Median OS was 11.5 months with apatinib plus vinorelbine and 9.9 months with vinorelbine (HR,1.01; 95% CI, 0.51 to 1.97; P = 0.985). The ORR was 9.1% in the apatinib plus vinorelbine group and 6.3% in the vinorelbine group (P = 0.667). The most common treatment-related hematologic grade 3–4 adverse events in apatinib plus vinorelbine group, were leukopenia, granulocytopenia, anemia, and thrombocytopenia. no treatment-related nonhematologic grade 4 adverse events or treatment-related deaths were observed. Collectively, adding apatinib to vinorelbine shows a promising benefit in PFS compared to vinorelbine monotherapy, with an excellent toxicity profile, warranting further exploration.

Network meta-analysis of eribulin versus other chemotherapies used as second- or later-line treatment in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer

BACKGROUND

Eribulin mesylate (ERI; Halaven®) is a microtubule inhibitor approved in the United States for metastatic breast cancer patients with at least two prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic breast cancer, and in the European Union in locally advanced breast cancer or metastatic breast cancer patients who progressed after at least one chemotherapy for advanced disease. This network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of ERI versus other chemotherapies in this setting.

METHODS

Systematic searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials identified randomized controlled trials of locally advanced breast cancer/metastatic breast cancer chemotherapies in second- or later-line settings. Efficacy assessment included pre-specified subgroup analysis of breast cancer subtypes. Included studies were assessed for quality using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination tool. Bayesian network meta-analysis estimated primary outcomes of overall survival and progression-free survival using fixed-effect models. Comparators included: capecitabine (CAP), gemcitabine (GEM), ixabepilone (IXA), utidelone (UTI), treatment by physician's choice (TPC), and vinorelbine (VIN).

RESULTS

The network meta-analysis included seven trials. Results showed that second- or later-line patients treated with ERI had statistically longer overall survival versus TPC (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81; credible interval [CrI]: 0.66-0.99) or GEM+VIN (0.62; 0.42-0.90) and statistically longer progression-free survival versus TPC (0.76; 0.64-0.90), but statistically shorter progression-free survival versus CAP+IXA (1.40; 1.17-1.67) and CAP+UTI (1.61; 1.23-2.12). In triple negative breast cancer, ERI had statistically longer overall survival versus CAP (0.70; 0.54-0.90); no statistical differences in progression-free survival were observed in triple negative breast cancer.

CONCLUSIONS

This network meta-analysis suggests that ERI may provide an overall survival benefit in the overall locally advanced breast cancer/metastatic breast cancer populations and triple negative breast cancer subgroup compared to standard treatments. These findings support the use of ERI in second- or later-line treatment of patients with locally advanced breast cancer/metastatic breast cancer.

Chemotherapy Options beyond the First Line in HER-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer

Despite the recent advances in the biological understanding of breast cancer (BC), chemotherapy still represents a key component in the armamentarium for this disease. Different agents are available as mono-chemotherapy options in patients with locally advanced or metastatic BC (MBC) who progress after a first- and second-line treatment with anthracyclines and taxanes. However, no clear indication exists on what the best option is in some populations, such as heavily pretreated, elderly patients, triple-negative BC (TNBC), and those who do not respond to the first-line therapy. In this article, we summarize available literature evidence on different chemotherapy agents used beyond the first-line, in locally advanced or MBC patients, including rechallenge with anthracyclines and taxanes, antimetabolite and antimicrotubule agents, such as vinorelbine, capecitabine, eribulin, ixabepilone, and the newest developed agents, such as vinflunine, irinotecan, and etirinotecan.

Second-line single-agent chemotherapy in human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

No 'gold standard' exists for single-agent chemotherapy of human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (HER2-negative) metastatic breast cancer (MBC) in the second-line. The objective of this systematic review is to identify and appraise overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), time to progression (TTP) and Grade ≥3 adverse event evidence for single-agent chemotherapy in this setting.

METHODS

MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library were searched to October 2013, and PubMed October 2013 to November 2014. Electronic database searches were supplemented with hand searching of reference lists and conferences. Eligible randomised controlled trials (RCTs) employed at least one single-agent chemotherapy treatment, enrolled HER2-negative or unselected MBC patients who had progressed following first-line chemotherapy within the metastatic setting, and reported outcomes of interest for the second-line setting.

RESULTS

Fifty-three RCTs were included in total, with most containing mixed populations by HER2 status and treatment line. Fourteen studies reported data specifically for second- and later-line treatment within the metastatic setting. Median overall survival (OS) in most trials was 8-13 months. Only one trial reported a significant difference between studied interventions in the second-line metastatic setting: nab-paclitaxel (n=131) conferred a statistically significant OS advantage vs. three-weekly paclitaxel (n=136) (median OS 13.0 vs. 10.7 months, respectively; hazard ratio 0.73, p=0.024) and improved overall safety.

CONCLUSION

One RCT demonstrated significant benefit in this setting in confirmed HER2-negative MBC alongside favourable safety. Treatment line terminology was imprecise. To reliably inform patient treatment decisions, quality-of-life data are needed and precise OS estimation according to underlying patient characteristics.