PURPOSE: Survival time for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) can be substantially improved by combination chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting. Capecitabine and vinorelbine have shown considerable efficacy and favourable toxicity as single agents. The aim of this study is to evaluate the response to the combination of capecitabine and vinorelbine as second-line treatment in patients previously treated with taxanes and/or anthracyclines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients with MBC, who received a combination of vinorelbine and capecitabine were included in the study. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 53.9% and disease progression rate was 28.2% for patients who received six cycles of therapy, rates significantly higher than the three-cycle group. The treatment was generally well tolerated and toxicity was mild. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of capecitabine and vinorelbine as salvage therapy in anthracycline- and/or taxane-pre-treated patients with MBC seems to be effective and safe, even more so as the number of treatment cycles increases.
PURPOSE: Survival time for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) can be substantially improved by combination chemotherapy in the adjuvant setting. Capecitabine and vinorelbine have shown considerable efficacy and favourable toxicity as single agents. The aim of this study is to evaluate the response to the combination of capecitabine and vinorelbine as second-line treatment in patients previously treated with taxanes and/or anthracyclines. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Thirty-nine patients with MBC, who received a combination of vinorelbine and capecitabine were included in the study. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 53.9% and disease progression rate was 28.2% for patients who received six cycles of therapy, rates significantly higher than the three-cycle group. The treatment was generally well tolerated and toxicity was mild. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of capecitabine and vinorelbine as salvage therapy in anthracycline- and/or taxane-pre-treated patients with MBC seems to be effective and safe, even more so as the number of treatment cycles increases.
Authors: J A Oshaughnessy; J Blum; V Moiseyenko; S E Jones; D Miles; D Bell; R Rosso; L Mauriac; B Osterwalder; H U Burger; S Laws Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2001-09 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Kathy D Miller; Linnea I Chap; Frankie A Holmes; Melody A Cobleigh; P Kelly Marcom; Louis Fehrenbacher; Maura Dickler; Beth A Overmoyer; James D Reimann; Amy P Sing; Virginia Langmuir; Hope S Rugo Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2005-02-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: S Bruno; V L Puerto; E Mickiewicz; R Hegg; L C Texeira; L Gaitan; L Martinez; O Fernandez; J Otero; G Kesselring Journal: Am J Clin Oncol Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 2.339
Authors: A D Seidman; B S Reichman; J P Crown; T J Yao; V Currie; T B Hakes; C A Hudis; T A Gilewski; J Baselga; P Forsythe Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1995-05 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Romero; M G Rabinovich; C T Vallejo; J E Perez; R Rodriguez; M A Cuevas; M Machiavelli; J A Lacava; M Langhi; L Romero Acuña Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1994-02 Impact factor: 44.544