PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, particularly in patients with anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated 2(nd)-line or greater metastatic breast cancer, and to compare gemcitabine monotherapy (G) with two gemcitabine-based doublets, gemcitabine/vinorelbine (GV) and gemcitabine/capecitabine (GX). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 124 consecutive patients who progressed after anthracycline- and taxane-containing chemotherapy, 58 received G alone, 38 received GV, and 28 received GX; their outcomes were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: The median number of prior metastatic chemotherapy regimens was 2 (range 0 approximately 4). Visceral metastases were observed in 65 patients (51.4%). The overall response rate was 19.3% (21 partial responses). After a median follow-up period of 21.4 months, the overall survival was 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.5 approximately 9.6 months) and the median time to progression was 3.1 months (95% CI: 2.0 approximately 4.2 months). Compared with monotherapy (G), combination therapy with vinorelbine or capecitabine (GV/GX) was associated with a significantly higher response rate (8.2% vs. 28.3%, p=0.008) and a significantly longer median time to progression (2.8 vs. 3.5 months; p=0.028), but overall survival did not differ between the groups (7.4 vs. 8.2 months, respectively; p=0.54). Most of the adverse treatment-related events were mild to moderate in intensity. The most common adverse event was hematologic toxicity. Multivariate analysis showed that poor performance status and a short disease-free interval were independent prognostic factors for impaired overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of gemcitabine with vinorelbine or capecitabine was an active and well-tolerated treatment option for taxane- and anthracycline-pretreated 2(nd)-line or greater metastatic breast cancer patients, and gemcitabine-based doublets were more beneficial than gemcitabine monotherapy in alleviating symptoms for these patients.
PURPOSE: To evaluate the efficacy of gemcitabine-based chemotherapy, particularly in patients with anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated 2(nd)-line or greater metastatic breast cancer, and to compare gemcitabine monotherapy (G) with two gemcitabine-based doublets, gemcitabine/vinorelbine (GV) and gemcitabine/capecitabine (GX). MATERIALS AND METHODS: Of 124 consecutive patients who progressed after anthracycline- and taxane-containing chemotherapy, 58 received G alone, 38 received GV, and 28 received GX; their outcomes were analyzed retrospectively. RESULTS: The median number of prior metastatic chemotherapy regimens was 2 (range 0 approximately 4). Visceral metastases were observed in 65 patients (51.4%). The overall response rate was 19.3% (21 partial responses). After a median follow-up period of 21.4 months, the overall survival was 7.6 months (95% CI: 5.5 approximately 9.6 months) and the median time to progression was 3.1 months (95% CI: 2.0 approximately 4.2 months). Compared with monotherapy (G), combination therapy with vinorelbine or capecitabine (GV/GX) was associated with a significantly higher response rate (8.2% vs. 28.3%, p=0.008) and a significantly longer median time to progression (2.8 vs. 3.5 months; p=0.028), but overall survival did not differ between the groups (7.4 vs. 8.2 months, respectively; p=0.54). Most of the adverse treatment-related events were mild to moderate in intensity. The most common adverse event was hematologic toxicity. Multivariate analysis showed that poor performance status and a short disease-free interval were independent prognostic factors for impaired overall survival. CONCLUSIONS: The combination of gemcitabine with vinorelbine or capecitabine was an active and well-tolerated treatment option for taxane- and anthracycline-pretreated 2(nd)-line or greater metastatic breast cancerpatients, and gemcitabine-based doublets were more beneficial than gemcitabine monotherapy in alleviating symptoms for these patients.
Entities:
Keywords:
Breast neoplasms; Chemotherapy; Combination; Gemcitabine
Authors: C Nicolaides; M A Dimopoulos; E Samantas; D Bafaloukos; C Kalofonos; G Fountzilas; E Razi; P Kosmidis; N Pavlidis Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2000-07 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: M Spielmann; A Llombart-Cussac; S Kalla; M Espié; M Namer; J M Ferrero; V Diéras; P Fumoleau; C Cuvier; G Perrocheau; A Ponzio; L Kayitalire; P Pouillart Journal: Oncology Date: 2001 Impact factor: 2.935
Authors: D Mavroudis; N Malamos; A Alexopoulos; C Kourousis; S Agelaki; E Sarra; A Potamianou; C Kosmas; G Rigatos; T Giannakakis; K Kalbakis; F Apostolaki; J Vlachonicolis; S Kakolyris; G Samonis; V Georgoulias Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: George W Sledge; Donna Neuberg; Patricia Bernardo; James N Ingle; Silvana Martino; Eric K Rowinsky; William C Wood Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-02-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: George P Stathopoulos; Sotiris K Rigatos; Nikos Pergantas; Dimitris Tsavdarides; Ilias Athanasiadis; Nikos A Malamos; John G Stathopoulos Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-01-01 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: A Alexopoulos; D Tryfonopoulos; M V Karamouzis; G Gerasimidis; I Karydas; K Kandilis; J Stavrakakis; H Stavrinides; C Georganta; A Ardavanis; G Rigatos Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Joyce O'Shaughnessy; David Miles; Svetislava Vukelja; Vladimir Moiseyenko; Jean-Pierre Ayoub; Guadalupe Cervantes; Pierre Fumoleau; Stephen Jones; Wing-Yiu Lui; Louis Mauriac; Chris Twelves; Guy Van Hazel; Shailendra Verma; Robert Leonard Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2002-06-15 Impact factor: 44.544