Jing Li1, Jing Ren2, Wenxia Sun3. 1. College of Pharmacy, Southwest University for Nationalities, Chengdu, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. 2. Sichuan Industrial Institute of Antibiotics of Chengdu University, No. 168 Huaguan Road, Longtan Industrial Park, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. 3. Sichuan Industrial Institute of Antibiotics of Chengdu University, No. 168 Huaguan Road, Longtan Industrial Park, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, People's Republic of China. 1509614685@qq.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Ixabepilone is now a Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutic option for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) whose disease has progressed despite prior anthracycline and taxane therapy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of ixabepilone for treating metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Randomized controlled studies applying ixabepilone for treating MBC were included. The primary outcome was Overall Survival (OS). The authors of primary articles were contacted and methodological quality was evaluated. Subgroups were drawn based on intervention measures; heterogeneity and bias were discussed. RESULTS: Eight studies with 5247 patients were included. Compared with a weekly schedule, a triweekly schedule of ixabepilone was better at improving overall response rate (ORR), while there were no differences in improving OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Ixabepilone plus capecitabine was superior to capecitabine monotherapy in improving OS, PFS and ORR. Paclitaxel was more effective than ixabepilone in terms of OS and PFS. There was no difference in the improvement of ORR, clinical benefit rate (CBR) and disease control rate (DCR) between ixabepilone and eribulin. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that a triweekly schedule of ixabepilone is more effective than weekly dosing in improving ORR. Use of ixabepilone in combination with capecitabine possesses superior clinical efficacy to the use of capecitabine alone. Paclitaxel was more effective than ixabepilone in terms of OS and PFS. The efficacy and safety between ixabepilone and eribulin were identical.
BACKGROUND:Ixabepilone is now a Food and Drug Administration-approved therapeutic option for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) whose disease has progressed despite prior anthracycline and taxane therapy. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to systematically evaluate the efficacy and safety of ixabepilone for treating metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: A systematic review and meta-analysis were conducted. Randomized controlled studies applying ixabepilone for treating MBC were included. The primary outcome was Overall Survival (OS). The authors of primary articles were contacted and methodological quality was evaluated. Subgroups were drawn based on intervention measures; heterogeneity and bias were discussed. RESULTS: Eight studies with 5247 patients were included. Compared with a weekly schedule, a triweekly schedule of ixabepilone was better at improving overall response rate (ORR), while there were no differences in improving OS and progression-free survival (PFS). Ixabepilone plus capecitabine was superior to capecitabine monotherapy in improving OS, PFS and ORR. Paclitaxel was more effective than ixabepilone in terms of OS and PFS. There was no difference in the improvement of ORR, clinical benefit rate (CBR) and disease control rate (DCR) between ixabepilone and eribulin. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence suggests that a triweekly schedule of ixabepilone is more effective than weekly dosing in improving ORR. Use of ixabepilone in combination with capecitabine possesses superior clinical efficacy to the use of capecitabine alone. Paclitaxel was more effective than ixabepilone in terms of OS and PFS. The efficacy and safety between ixabepilone and eribulin were identical.
Entities:
Keywords:
Ixabepilone; Meta-analysis; Metastatic breast cancer; Systematic review; Therapy
Authors: Zdenek Dvorak; Max Klapholz; Thomas P Burris; Benjamin P Willing; Antimo Gioiello; Roberto Pellicciari; Francesco Galli; John March; Stephen J O'Keefe; R Balfour Sartor; Chang H Kim; Maayan Levy; Sridhar Mani Journal: Mol Pharmacol Date: 2020-08-06 Impact factor: 4.436
Authors: Debra P Ritzwoller; Michael J Hassett; Hajime Uno; Angel M Cronin; Nikki M Carroll; Mark C Hornbrook; Lawrence C Kushi Journal: J Natl Cancer Inst Date: 2018-03-01 Impact factor: 13.506
Authors: Jennifer L Caswell-Jin; Sylvia K Plevritis; Lu Tian; Christopher J Cadham; Cong Xu; Natasha K Stout; George W Sledge; Jeanne S Mandelblatt; Allison W Kurian Journal: JNCI Cancer Spectr Date: 2018-12-24
Authors: María Paz Saldías; Diego Maureira; Octavio Orellana-Serradell; Ian Silva; Boris Lavanderos; Pablo Cruz; Camila Torres; Mónica Cáceres; Oscar Cerda Journal: Front Oncol Date: 2021-06-10 Impact factor: 6.244
Authors: Melissa J Davis; Brandon J Wainwright; Laura A Genovesi; Amanda Millar; Elissa Tolson; Matthew Singleton; Emily Hassall; Marija Kojic; Caterina Brighi; Emily Girard; Clara Andradas; Mani Kuchibhotla; Dharmesh D Bhuva; Raelene Endersby; Nicholas G Gottardo; Anne Bernard; Christelle Adolphe; James M Olson; Michael D Taylor Journal: Genome Med Date: 2021-06-21 Impact factor: 11.117