Gemcitabine and capecitabine in previously anthracycline-treated metastatic breast cancer: a multicenter phase II study (SOLTI 0301 trial).
ABSTRACT On the basis of clinical activity of capecitabine and gemcitabine for metastatic breast cancer, we carried out a multicenter phase II clinical trial on the combination of these two agents in advanced anthracycline-pretreated breast cancer patients. Main objectives were to assess its efficacy and safety profile.
Seventy-six anthracycline-pretreated breast cancer patients were evaluated and were stratified according to previous treatment of advanced disease (group-1: not previously treated and group-2: previously treated). Study treatment consisted of gemcitabine 1000 mg/m(2), i.v., as 30 min-infusion, days 1 and 8 every 21 days, plus oral capecitabine 830 mg/m(2) b.i.d., days 1-14 every 21 days.
Overall response rate was 61% for group-1, 48.5% for group-2 and 55.2% for the whole population. Clinical benefit rate was 73% for group-1, 80% for patients in group-2 and 76% for all patients. Median time to progression was 13.0 months for group-1, 8.2 months for group-2 and 11.1 months for the whole population. Most frequent grade 3-4 observed toxic effects per patient were neutropenia (60%), asymptomatic liver toxicity (13.5%), asthenia (14%) and hand-foot syndrome (16%). Only one patient presented febrile neutropenia. No treatment-related deaths occurred.
Combination of gemcitabine and capecitabine is an active and safe regimen in anthracycline-pretreated breast cancer patients.
- SourceAvailable from: annonc.oxfordjournals.org[show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Capecitabine is active against anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated metastatic breast cancer. Post-marketing use of capecitabine at the FDA-approved dose (2500 mg/m2/day) leads to unacceptable toxicity in many patients. Dose reductions anecdotally improve tolerability without compromising efficacy. This retrospective analysis was designed to verify these anecdotal reports. Patients and methods: We retrospectively reviewed the records of 141 consecutive patients with metastatic breast cancer identified from pharmacy records as receiving capecitabine outside of a clinical trial between May 1998 and February 1999. Responses were defined as clinical improvement (ID), stabilization of disease (SD) for 6 weeks or longer, or progression (PD). Patients were grouped according to the starting dose level of capecitabine: A=2500+/-5% (dose range 2385-2560) mg/m2/day; B=2250+/-5% (range 2130-2350) mg/m2/day; C < or = 2000+5% (range 1000-2100) mg/m2/day. We also reviewed the safety profile of capecitabine at these doses and performed a safety review of capecitabine in phase II and III metastatic breast and colorectal cancer trials. Clinical data were available for 113 patients (105 for response, 106 for toxicity). The median age was 52.5 years and the mean number of prior metastatic chemotherapy regimens was 2 (range 0-7). The mean capecitabine starting dose was 2220 mg/m2/day and the median number of cycles administered was 4 (range 1-19). The mean tolerated dose was 2040 mg/m2/day (range 960-2670). Grade 3/4 toxic effects at dose levels A, B and C, respectively, included palmar-plantar erythrodysesthesia (33%, 63%, 20%), diarrhea (13%, 12%, 3%), stomatitis (8%, 0%, 3%), and nausea/vomiting (4%, 6%, 5%). Forty per cent of all patients required capecitabine dose reductions; fewer patients treated with 2000 mg/m2/day required dose modification (28%). Five per cent of the patients required discontinuation of capecitabine owing to toxicity. Patients started at the lowest doses of capecitabine did not have poorer response rates or shorter time to progression. This retrospective analysis supports a starting dose of 2000 mg/m2/day because of its superior therapeutic index; however, patients may still have toxic effects and individualization of dosing is necessary. A phase III, multicenter, randomized study to establish the safety and efficacy of different doses of capecitabine is urgently needed.Annals of Oncology 09/2005; 16(8):1289-96. · 7.38 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Anticancer cytotoxic agents go through a process by which their antitumor activity-on the basis of the amount of tumor shrinkage they could generate-has been investigated. In the late 1970s, the International Union Against Cancer and the World Health Organization introduced specific criteria for the codification of tumor response evaluation. In 1994, several organizations involved in clinical research combined forces to tackle the review of these criteria on the basis of the experience and knowledge acquired since then. After several years of intensive discussions, a new set of guidelines is ready that will supersede the former criteria. In parallel to this initiative, one of the participating groups developed a model by which response rates could be derived from unidimensional measurement of tumor lesions instead of the usual bidimensional approach. This new concept has been largely validated by the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors Group and integrated into the present guidelines. This special article also provides some philosophic background to clarify the various purposes of response evaluation. It proposes a model by which a combined assessment of all existing lesions, characterized by target lesions (to be measured) and nontarget lesions, is used to extrapolate an overall response to treatment. Methods of assessing tumor lesions are better codified, briefly within the guidelines and in more detail in Appendix I. All other aspects of response evaluation have been discussed, reviewed, and amended whenever appropriate.JNCI Journal of the National Cancer Institute 03/2000; 92(3):205-16. · 14.34 Impact Factor
- [show abstract] [hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: To determine whether Myocet (liposome-encapsulated doxorubicin; The Liposome Company, Elan Corporation, Princeton, NJ) in combination with cyclophosphamide significantly reduces doxorubicin cardiotoxicity while providing comparable antitumor efficacy in first-line treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Two hundred ninety-seven patients with MBC and no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease were randomized to receive either 60 mg/m(2) of Myocet (M) or conventional doxorubicin (A), in combination with 600 mg/m(2) of cyclophosphamide (C), every 3 weeks until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. Cardiotoxicity was defined by reductions in left-ventricular ejection fraction, assessed by serial multigated radionuclide angiography scans, or congestive heart failure (CHF). Antitumor efficacy was assessed by objective tumor response rates (World Health Organization criteria), time to progression, and survival. Six percent of MC patients versus 21% (including five cases of CHF) of AC patients developed cardiotoxicity (P =.0002). Median cumulative doxorubicin dose at onset was more than 2,220 mg/m(2) for MC versus 480 mg/m(2) for AC (P =.0001, hazard ratio, 5.04). MC patients also experienced less grade 4 neutropenia. Antitumor efficacy of MC versus AC was comparable: objective response rates, 43% versus 43%; median time to progression, 5.1% versus 5.5 months; median time to treatment failure, 4.6 versus 4.4 months; and median survival, 19 versus 16 months. Myocet improves the therapeutic index of doxorubicin by significantly reducing cardiotoxicity and grade 4 neutropenia and provides comparable antitumor efficacy, when used in combination with cyclophosphamide as first-line therapy for MBC.Journal of Clinical Oncology 04/2001; 19(5):1444-54. · 18.04 Impact Factor