Pin Zhang1, Tao Sun2, Qingyuan Zhang3, Zhongyu Yuan4, Zefei Jiang5, Xiao Jia Wang6, Shude Cui7, Yuee Teng8, Xi-Chun Hu9, Junlan Yang10, Hongming Pan11, Zhongsheng Tong12, Huiping Li13, Qiang Yao14, Yongsheng Wang15, Yongmei Yin16, Ping Sun17, Hong Zheng18, Jing Cheng19, Jinsong Lu20, Baochun Zhang21, Cuizhi Geng22, Jian Liu23, Roujun Peng4, Min Yan7, Shaohua Zhang5, Jian Huang6, Li Tang24, Rongguo Qiu24, Binghe Xu25. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. 2. Liaoning Cancer Hospital and Institute, Shenyang, China. 3. Department of Medical Oncology, Harbin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Harbin, China. 4. Department of Medical Oncology, Sun Yat-sen University Cancer Center, Guangzhou, China. 5. The 307th Hospital of Chinese PLA, Beijing, China. 6. Zhejiang Cancer Hospital, Hangzhou, China. 7. Breast Cancer Center, Henan Cancer Hospital, Zhengzhou, China. 8. Department of Medical Oncology, the First Hospital of China Medical University, Shenyang, China. 9. Fudan University Cancer Center, Shanghai, China. 10. The 301st Hospital of Chinese PLA, Beijing, China. 11. Sir Run Run Shaw Hospital, School of Medicine, Zhejiang University, Hangzhou, China. 12. Department of Breast Oncology, Tianjin Medical University Cancer Hospital, Tianjin, China. 13. Peking University Cancer Hospital, Beijing, China. 14. Nankai University Tianjin People's Hospital, Tianjin, China. 15. Shandong Cancer Hospital Affiliated to Shandong University, Jinan, China. 16. The First Affiliated Hospital of Nanjing Medical University, Nanjing, China. 17. Qingdao University Yantai Yuhuangding Hospital, Yantai, China. 18. Sichuan University West China Hospital, Chengdu, China. 19. Tongji Medical College Wuhan Union Hospital, Wuhan, China. 20. Shanghai Jiaotong University Renji Hospital, Shanghai, China. 21. Nantong Tumor Hospital, Nantong, China. 22. Hebei Medical University Tumor Hospital, Shijiazhuang, China. 23. Fujian Medical University Cancer Hospital, Fuzhou, China. 24. Beijing Biostar Technologies, Beijing, China. 25. Department of Medical Oncology, National Cancer Center/Cancer Hospital, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and Peking Union Medical College, Beijing, China. Electronic address: bhxu@hotmail.com.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Utidelone, a genetically engineered epothilone analogue, has shown promise as a potential treatment for breast cancer in phase 1 and 2 trials. The aim of this phase 3 trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of utidelone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, superiority, phase 3, randomised controlled trial in 26 hospitals in China. Eligible participants were female patients with metastatic breast cancer refractory to anthracycline and taxane chemotherapy regimens. We randomly assigned participants (2:1) using computer based randomisation and block sizes of 6 to a 21-day cycle of either utidelone (30 mg/m2 intravenously once per day on days 1-5) plus capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally twice per day on days 1-14), or capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m2 orally twice per day on days 1-14), until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. Patients, physicians, and assessors were not masked to treatment allocation; however, an independent radiology review committee used to additionally assess response was masked to allocation. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed (by an independent radiology review committee) progression-free survival, and analysed using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. Follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02253459. FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2014, and Dec 14, 2015, we enrolled and randomly assigned 270 patients to treatment with utidelone plus capecitabine, and 135 to capecitabine alone. Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 6·77 months (IQR 3·81-10·32) for the utidelone plus capecitabine group and 4·55 months (2·55-9·39) for the capecitabine alone group. Median progression-free survival by central review in the utidelone plus capecitabine group was 8·44 months (95% CI 7·95-9·92) compared with 4·27 months (3·22-5·68) in the capecitabine alone group; hazard ratio 0·46, 95% CI 0·36-0·59; p<0·0001. Peripheral neuropathy was the most common grade 3 adverse event in the utidelone plus capecitabine group (58 [22%] of 267 patients vs 1 [<1%] of 130 patients in the capecitabine alone group). Palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia was the most prominent grade 3 adverse event in the capacitabine alone group (in 10 [8%] of 130 patients) and was the next most frequent grade 3 event in the utidelone plus capecitabine group (in 18 [7%] of 267 patients). 16 serious adverse events were reported in the combination therapy group (diarrhoea was the most common, in three [1%] patients) and 14 serious adverse events were reported in the monotherapy group (the most common were diarrhoea, increased blood bilirubin, and anaemia, in two [2%] patients for each event). 155 patients died (99 in the combination therapy arm, 56 in the monotherapy arm). All deaths were related to disease progression except for one in each group (attributed to pericardial effusion in the combination therapy group and dyspnoea in the monotherapy group) that were considered possibly or probably treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: Despite disease progression with previous chemotherapies, utidelone plus capecitabine was more efficacious compared with capecitabine alone for the outcome of progression-free survival, with mild toxicity except for peripheral sensory neuropathy, which was manageable. The findings from this study support the use of utidelone plus capecitabine as an effective option for patients with metastatic breast cancer. FUNDING: Beijing Biostar Technologies, Beijing, China.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND:Utidelone, a genetically engineered epothilone analogue, has shown promise as a potential treatment for breast cancer in phase 1 and 2 trials. The aim of this phase 3 trial was to compare the efficacy and safety of utidelone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer. METHODS: We did a multicentre, open-label, superiority, phase 3, randomised controlled trial in 26 hospitals in China. Eligible participants were female patients with metastatic breast cancer refractory to anthracycline and taxane chemotherapy regimens. We randomly assigned participants (2:1) using computer based randomisation and block sizes of 6 to a 21-day cycle of either utidelone (30 mg/m2 intravenously once per day on days 1-5) plus capecitabine (1000 mg/m2 orally twice per day on days 1-14), or capecitabine alone (1250 mg/m2 orally twice per day on days 1-14), until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity occurred. Patients, physicians, and assessors were not masked to treatment allocation; however, an independent radiology review committee used to additionally assess response was masked to allocation. The primary endpoint was centrally assessed (by an independent radiology review committee) progression-free survival, and analysed using the Kaplan-Meier product-limit method in the intention-to-treat population. Safety was assessed in all participants who received at least one dose of study drug. Follow-up is ongoing. This study is registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02253459. FINDINGS: Between Aug 8, 2014, and Dec 14, 2015, we enrolled and randomly assigned 270 patients to treatment with utidelone plus capecitabine, and 135 to capecitabine alone. Median follow-up for progression-free survival was 6·77 months (IQR 3·81-10·32) for the utidelone plus capecitabine group and 4·55 months (2·55-9·39) for the capecitabine alone group. Median progression-free survival by central review in the utidelone plus capecitabine group was 8·44 months (95% CI 7·95-9·92) compared with 4·27 months (3·22-5·68) in the capecitabine alone group; hazard ratio 0·46, 95% CI 0·36-0·59; p<0·0001. Peripheral neuropathy was the most common grade 3 adverse event in the utidelone plus capecitabine group (58 [22%] of 267 patients vs 1 [<1%] of 130 patients in the capecitabine alone group). Palmar-plantar erythrodysaesthesia was the most prominent grade 3 adverse event in the capacitabine alone group (in 10 [8%] of 130 patients) and was the next most frequent grade 3 event in the utidelone plus capecitabine group (in 18 [7%] of 267 patients). 16 serious adverse events were reported in the combination therapy group (diarrhoea was the most common, in three [1%] patients) and 14 serious adverse events were reported in the monotherapy group (the most common were diarrhoea, increased blood bilirubin, and anaemia, in two [2%] patients for each event). 155 patients died (99 in the combination therapy arm, 56 in the monotherapy arm). All deaths were related to disease progression except for one in each group (attributed to pericardial effusion in the combination therapy group and dyspnoea in the monotherapy group) that were considered possibly or probably treatment-related. INTERPRETATION: Despite disease progression with previous chemotherapies, utidelone plus capecitabine was more efficacious compared with capecitabine alone for the outcome of progression-free survival, with mild toxicity except for peripheral sensory neuropathy, which was manageable. The findings from this study support the use of utidelone plus capecitabine as an effective option for patients with metastatic breast cancer. FUNDING: Beijing Biostar Technologies, Beijing, China.