Guolei Dong1, Yan Jia1, Xiaorui Wang1, Shufen Li1, Chen Wang1, Yehui Shi1, Zhongsheng Tong1. 1. Department of Breast Oncology, Key Laboratory of Breast Cancer Prevention and Therapy, Tianjin Medical University, Ministry of Education, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Institute and Hospital, National Clinical Research Center of Cancer, Huanhuxi Road Tianjin 300060, China.
Abstract
AIM: The study examined the response rate, response duration and toxicity of maintenance treatment (CMT) and non-maintenance treatment with capecitabine (non-CMT) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between September 2009 and July 2013, a group of 82 patients with MBC, who had progressed after anthracycline/taxane chemotherapy, was treated with a capecitabine-based chemotherapy and divided into two groups. 54 patients received CMT 1.5 g twice a day from days 1 to 14, and 28 patients achieved non-CMT. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The median age of patients treated with CMT and non-CMT was 57 years (range 38-78) and 50 years (range 37-77). The evaluation of treatment effect was possible in all patients. RESULTS: The overall response rate (ORR) was 29.7% (16 cases), including 3 (5.6%) complete responses (CR) and 13 (24.1%) partial responses (PR). Stable disease (SD) was observed in 7.4% of patients receiving CMT (54 patients). In the group receiving non-CMT, ORR was 3.6% (1 case). The median PFS in CMT group was 36 weeks, while in non-CMT group was 24 weeks. The most common adverse event was hematologic toxicity (74.1%), with the incidence of grade 1-2/3-4 was 70.4% and 3.7%. Hand-foot syndrome was the most frequent non-hematologic form of toxicity, occurring in 70.4% of cases. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS: CMT is an effective and safe treatment for pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients. And CMT appears to be a more efficacious treatment than non-CMT.
AIM: The study examined the response rate, response duration and toxicity of maintenance treatment (CMT) and non-maintenance treatment with capecitabine (non-CMT) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). MATERIAL AND METHODS: Between September 2009 and July 2013, a group of 82 patients with MBC, who had progressed after anthracycline/taxane chemotherapy, was treated with a capecitabine-based chemotherapy and divided into two groups. 54 patients received CMT 1.5 g twice a day from days 1 to 14, and 28 patients achieved non-CMT. Treatment was continued until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The median age of patients treated with CMT and non-CMT was 57 years (range 38-78) and 50 years (range 37-77). The evaluation of treatment effect was possible in all patients. RESULTS: The overall response rate (ORR) was 29.7% (16 cases), including 3 (5.6%) complete responses (CR) and 13 (24.1%) partial responses (PR). Stable disease (SD) was observed in 7.4% of patients receiving CMT (54 patients). In the group receiving non-CMT, ORR was 3.6% (1 case). The median PFS in CMT group was 36 weeks, while in non-CMT group was 24 weeks. The most common adverse event was hematologic toxicity (74.1%), with the incidence of grade 1-2/3-4 was 70.4% and 3.7%. Hand-foot syndrome was the most frequent non-hematologic form of toxicity, occurring in 70.4% of cases. There were no treatment-related deaths. CONCLUSIONS:CMT is an effective and safe treatment for pretreated metastatic breast cancerpatients. And CMT appears to be a more efficacious treatment than non-CMT.
Entities:
Keywords:
CMT; Metastatic breast cancer; capecitabine; chemotherapy
Authors: A U Buzdar; B Xu; R Digumarti; L Goedhals; X Hu; V Semiglazov; S Cheporov; E Gotovkin; S Hoersch; K Rittweger; D W Miles; J O'Shaughnessy; S Tjulandin Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2011-06-01 Impact factor: 32.976
Authors: Gabriel N Hortobagyi; Jaime de la Garza Salazar; Kathleen Pritchard; Dino Amadori; Renate Haidinger; Clifford A Hudis; Hussein Khaled; Mei-Ching Liu; Miguel Martin; Moise Namer; Joyce A O'Shaughnessy; Zhen Zhou Shen; Kathy S Albain Journal: Clin Breast Cancer Date: 2005-12 Impact factor: 3.225
Authors: M Miwa; M Ura; M Nishida; N Sawada; T Ishikawa; K Mori; N Shimma; I Umeda; H Ishitsuka Journal: Eur J Cancer Date: 1998-07 Impact factor: 9.162
Authors: P Reichardt; G Von Minckwitz; P C Thuss-Patience; W Jonat; H Kölbl; F Jänicke; D G Kieback; W Kuhn; A E Schindler; S Mohrmann; M Kaufmann; H J Lück Journal: Ann Oncol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 32.976
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: 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