PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether the combination of ixabepilone plus capecitabine improved overall survival (OS) compared with capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1,221 patients with MBC previously treated withanthracycline and taxanes were randomly assigned to ixabepilone (40 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1) plus capecitabine (2,000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 through 14) or capecitabine alone (2,500 mg/m(2) on the same schedule) given every 21 days. The trial was powered to detect a 20% reduction in the hazard ratio (HR) for death. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in OS between the combination and capecitabine monotherapy arm, the primary end point (median, 16.4 v 15.6 months; HR = 0.9; 95% CI, 078 to 1.03; P = .1162). The arms were well balanced with the exception of a higher prevalence of impaired performance status (Karnofsky performance status 70% to 80%) in the combination arm (32% v 25%). In a secondary Cox regression analysis adjusted for performance status and other prognostic factors, OS was improved for the combination (HR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .0231). In 79% of patients with measurable disease, the combination significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; median, 6.2 v 4.2 months; HR = 0.79; P = .0005) and response rate (43% v 29%; P < .0001). Grade 3 to 4 neuropathy occurred in 24% treated with the combination, but was reversible. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed a previous trial demonstrating improved PFS and response for the ixabepilone-capecitabine combination compared with capecitabine alone, although this did not result in improved survival.
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: We sought to determine whether the combination of ixabepilone plus capecitabine improved overall survival (OS) compared with capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes. PATIENTS AND METHODS: A total of 1,221 patients with MBC previously treated with anthracycline and taxanes were randomly assigned to ixabepilone (40 mg/m(2) intravenously on day 1) plus capecitabine (2,000 mg/m(2) orally on days 1 through 14) or capecitabine alone (2,500 mg/m(2) on the same schedule) given every 21 days. The trial was powered to detect a 20% reduction in the hazard ratio (HR) for death. RESULTS: There was no significant difference in OS between the combination and capecitabine monotherapy arm, the primary end point (median, 16.4 v 15.6 months; HR = 0.9; 95% CI, 078 to 1.03; P = .1162). The arms were well balanced with the exception of a higher prevalence of impaired performance status (Karnofsky performance status 70% to 80%) in the combination arm (32% v 25%). In a secondary Cox regression analysis adjusted for performance status and other prognostic factors, OS was improved for the combination (HR = 0.85; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.98; P = .0231). In 79% of patients with measurable disease, the combination significantly improved progression-free survival (PFS; median, 6.2 v 4.2 months; HR = 0.79; P = .0005) and response rate (43% v 29%; P < .0001). Grade 3 to 4 neuropathy occurred in 24% treated with the combination, but was reversible. CONCLUSION: This study confirmed a previous trial demonstrating improved PFS and response for the ixabepilone-capecitabine combination compared with capecitabine alone, although this did not result in improved survival.
Authors: P Therasse; S G Arbuck; E A Eisenhauer; J Wanders; R S Kaplan; L Rubinstein; J Verweij; M Van Glabbeke; A T van Oosterom; M C Christian; S G Gwyther Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2000-02-02 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Charles E Geyer; John Forster; Deborah Lindquist; Stephen Chan; C Gilles Romieu; Tadeusz Pienkowski; Agnieszka Jagiello-Gruszfeld; John Crown; Arlene Chan; Bella Kaufman; Dimosthenis Skarlos; Mario Campone; Neville Davidson; Mark Berger; Cristina Oliva; Stephen D Rubin; Steven Stein; David Cameron Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2006-12-28 Impact factor: 91.245
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: J L Blum; S E Jones; A U Buzdar; P M LoRusso; I Kuter; C Vogel; B Osterwalder; H U Burger; C S Brown; T Griffin Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 1999-02 Impact factor: 44.544
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: Miguel Martín; Amparo Ruiz; Monserrat Muñoz; Ana Balil; Jesús García-Mata; Lourdes Calvo; Eva Carrasco; Esther Mahillo; Antonio Casado; José Angel García-Saenz; M José Escudero; Vicente Guillem; Carlos Jara; Nuria Ribelles; Fernando Salas; Celia Soto; Flavia Morales-Vasquez; César A Rodríguez; Encarna Adrover; José Ramón Mel Journal: Lancet Oncol Date: 2007-03 Impact factor: 41.316
Authors: Francis Y F Lee; Robert Borzilleri; Craig R Fairchild; Amrita Kamath; Richard Smykla; Robert Kramer; Gregory Vite Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2008-03-18 Impact factor: 3.333
Authors: P Fumoleau; R Largillier; C Clippe; V Dièras; H Orfeuvre; T Lesimple; S Culine; B Audhuy; D Serin; H Curé; E Vuillemin; J-F Morère; F Montestruc; Z Mouri; M Namer Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 2004-03 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: E Chuang; N Wiener; P Christos; R Kessler; M Cobham; D Donovan; G L Goldberg; T Caputo; A Doyle; L Vahdat; J A Sparano Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2010-03-31 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: U O Njiaju; A J Tevaarwerk; K Kim; J E Chang; R M Hansen; T L Champeny; A M Traynor; S Meadows; L Van Ummersen; K Powers; J A Stewart Journal: Cancer Chemother Pharmacol Date: 2012-12-11 Impact factor: 3.333