Antiangiogenic therapy for breast cancer: current status and future perspectives

The Chinese-German Journal of Clinical Oncology 07/2011; 10(7):373-379. DOI: 10.1007/s10330-011-0812-9


Tumor angiogenesis plays an important role in the growth, invasion and metastasis of breast cancer, therefore recently a very
active area of breast cancer research involves the addition of antiangiogenic therapy. Numerous clinical studies for several
antiangiogenic agents have recently been conducted in breast cancer patients and have shown clinically significant improvement
in outcomes. This review gives a brief background to breast cancer angiogenesis, also focusing on current progress in the
field of antiangiogenic therapy for breast cancer and issues regarding future therapeutic development.

Key wordsbreast cancer–angiogenesis–antiangiogenic therapy–vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF)–bevacizumab

1 Follower
0 Reads
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This multicenter, randomized, open-label phase III trial (planned enrollment: 700 patients) was conducted to test the hypothesis that single-agent sunitinib improves progression-free survival (PFS) compared with capecitabine as treatment for advanced breast cancer (ABC). Patients with HER2-negative ABC that recurred after anthracycline and taxane therapy were randomized (1:1) to sunitinib 37.5 mg/day or capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) (1,000 mg/m(2) in patients >65 years) BID on days 1-14 q3w. The independent data-monitoring committee (DMC) determined during the first interim analysis (238 patients randomized to sunitinib, 244 to capecitabine) that the trial be terminated due to futility in reaching the primary endpoint. No statistical evidence supported the hypothesis that sunitinib improved PFS compared with capecitabine (one-sided P = 0.999). The data indicated that PFS was shorter with sunitinib than capecitabine (median 2.8 vs. 4.2 months, respectively; HR, 1.47; 95% CI, 1.16-1.87; two-sided P = 0.002). Median overall survival (15.3 vs. 24.6 months; HR, 1.17; two-sided P = 0.350) and objective response rates (11 vs. 16%; odds ratio, 0.65; P = 0.109) were numerically inferior with sunitinib versus capecitabine. While no new or unexpected safety findings were reported, sunitinib treatment was associated with higher frequencies and greater severities of many common adverse events (AEs) compared with capecitabine, resulting in more temporary discontinuations due to AEs with sunitinib (66 vs. 51%). The relative dose intensity was lower with sunitinib than capecitabine (73 vs. 95%). Based on these efficacy and safety results, sunitinib should not be used as monotherapy for patients with ABC.
    Breast Cancer Research and Treatment 03/2010; 121(1):121-31. DOI:10.1007/s10549-010-0788-0 · 3.94 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We conducted a cooperative group phase II study to assess antitumor activity and toxicity of sorafenib in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had received prior treatment for their disease. Patients were eligible if they had measurable disease and had previously received an anthracycline and/or a taxane in the neoadjuvant, adjuvant, or metastatic setting. The primary end point of the study was tumor response per Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST). The study was designed in two stages. Sorafenib was administered as 400 mg twice daily on days 1 through 28 of each 4-week cycle. Twenty-three patients were enrolled with a median age of 54 years (range, 37 to 70 years). Twenty-two (96%) had prior anthracycline treatment and 16 (70%) had prior taxane treatment. Patients received sorafenib for a median of two cycles (range, one to 15 cycles) with a median follow-up of 2.4 years (range, 2.2 to 2.6 years). There were no grade 4 toxicities and few grade 3 toxicities. Among the 20 patients eligible for efficacy analysis, no patients experienced a partial response or complete response per RECIST criteria. Thus, the trial stopped at the end of the first stage per study design. Two patients (10%; 90% CI, 1.8% to 28.3%) achieved stable disease lasting longer than 6 months. Sorafenib as a single agent, although well tolerated, did not exhibit activity when measured by tumor shrinkage in patients with MBC who had received prior treatment. Further research should focus on combinations with standard therapy and end points more sensitive to effects of targeted agents, such as disease stabilization.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 01/2009; 27(1):11-5. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2007.15.5242 · 18.43 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: E2100, an open-label, randomized, phase III trial conducted by the Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG), demonstrated a significant improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) and overall response rate (ORR) with paclitaxel plus bevacizumab compared with paclitaxel alone as initial chemotherapy for patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. An independent, blinded review of radiologic and clinical data was performed, assessing progression and response according to Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. In addition, ECOG's investigator assessments were reanalyzed using the same methods applied to the independent review. The primary end point was PFS as assessed by an independent review facility (IRF). The addition of bevacizumab to paclitaxel resulted in a statistically significant improvement in PFS using both the IRF and investigator assessments. Hazard ratios for PFS (0.48, 95% CI, 0.385 to 0.607; P < .0001 for the IRF v 0.42, 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.52; P < .0001 for ECOG investigators) and the improvement in median PFS (11.3 v 5.8 months for the IRF v 11.4 v 5.8 months for ECOG investigators) were similar. Among patients with measurable disease at baseline, the IRF-assessed ORR was significantly higher in patients treated with paclitaxel and bevacizumab (48.9% v 22.2%; P < .0001). The risk of progression was reduced by more than half and the ORR more than doubled with the addition of bevacizumab to weekly paclitaxel in both analyses, confirming a substantial and robust bevacizumab treatment effect. The consistency between the IRF and ECOG analyses validates the original data previously reported by ECOG in this open-label trial.
    Journal of Clinical Oncology 08/2009; 27(30):4966-72. DOI:10.1200/JCO.2008.21.6630 · 18.43 Impact Factor
Show more