Mitra Tewes1, Michael Wilhelm Peis2, Simon Bogner2, Jens M Theysohn3, Marcus Paul Reinboldt3, Martin Schuler2,4, Anja Welt2. 1. Department of Medical Oncology, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg Essen, 45122, Essen, Germany. mitra.tewes@uk-essen.de. 2. Department of Medical Oncology, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg Essen, 45122, Essen, Germany. 3. Department of Radiology, West German Cancer Center, University Hospital Essen, University Duisburg Essen, 45122, Essen, Germany. 4. German Cancer Consortium (DKTK), Partner Site University Hospital Essen, 45122, Essen, Germany.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) is an option for patients with liver-predominant metastatic breast cancer (LMBC), when no further systemic treatment is available. But systematic reports are limited. Here we conducted a retrospective analysis of LMBC patients treated at an expert center. METHODS: Individual patient data were retrieved from the clinical data base of the West German Cancer Center. Primary endpoints included hepatic response (RECIST), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. A score based on LDH, AST, ALT and bilirubine was developed to estimate the hepatic metastasis load. RESULTS: Data from 70 consecutive patients were included. All patients were heavily pretreated (median 7 treatment lines for LMBC). HAIC protocols included mitomycin/5-FU (70%), mitomycin (14.3%), melphalan (12.9%) and 5-FU (7.1%), with selection based on patient characteristics. Partial hepatic remission was obtained as best response in 14 patients (20.0%), stable disease in 27 patients (38.6%), and progressive disease in 29 patients (41.4%). Median PFS and OS from initiation of HAIC were 2 (range 0-10) and 7 months (range 1-37). Mainly hepatic and hematopoietic HAIC-related toxicities were observed; there was no treatment-related death. The hepatic metastasis score effectively separated two prognostic groups: Patients with a score <3 had significantly superior PFS (15 vs 7 weeks, p = 0.017) and OS (12 vs 5 months, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: HAIC offers a safe and effective salvage treatment strategy in heavily pretreated patients with LMBC and no further treatment options. The hepatic metastasis score may help to identify patients with sustained clinical benefit.
PURPOSE: Hepatic arterial infusion chemotherapy (HAIC) is an option for patients with liver-predominant metastatic breast cancer (LMBC), when no further systemic treatment is available. But systematic reports are limited. Here we conducted a retrospective analysis of LMBCpatients treated at an expert center. METHODS: Individual patient data were retrieved from the clinical data base of the West German Cancer Center. Primary endpoints included hepatic response (RECIST), progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. A score based on LDH, AST, ALT and bilirubine was developed to estimate the hepatic metastasis load. RESULTS: Data from 70 consecutive patients were included. All patients were heavily pretreated (median 7 treatment lines for LMBC). HAIC protocols included mitomycin/5-FU (70%), mitomycin (14.3%), melphalan (12.9%) and 5-FU (7.1%), with selection based on patient characteristics. Partial hepatic remission was obtained as best response in 14 patients (20.0%), stable disease in 27 patients (38.6%), and progressive disease in 29 patients (41.4%). Median PFS and OS from initiation of HAIC were 2 (range 0-10) and 7 months (range 1-37). Mainly hepatic and hematopoietic HAIC-related toxicities were observed; there was no treatment-related death. The hepatic metastasis score effectively separated two prognostic groups: Patients with a score <3 had significantly superior PFS (15 vs 7 weeks, p = 0.017) and OS (12 vs 5 months, p = 0.002). CONCLUSION: HAIC offers a safe and effective salvage treatment strategy in heavily pretreated patients with LMBC and no further treatment options. The hepatic metastasis score may help to identify patients with sustained clinical benefit.
Authors: Katrin Almstedt; Peter A Fasching; Anton Scharl; Claudia Rauh; Brigitte Rack; Alexander Hein; Carolin C Hack; Christian M Bayer; Sebastian M Jud; Michael G Schrauder; Matthias W Beckmann; Michael P Lux Journal: Anticancer Res Date: 2016-01 Impact factor: 2.480
Authors: G A M van Walsum; J A M de Ridder; C Verhoef; K Bosscha; T M van Gulik; E J Hesselink; T J M Ruers; M P van den Tol; I D Nagtegaal; M Brouwers; R van Hillegersberg; R J Porte; A M Rijken; L J A Strobbe; J H W de Wilt Journal: Eur J Surg Oncol Date: 2012-06-07 Impact factor: 4.424
Authors: David J Kerr; Colin S McArdle; Jonathan Ledermann; Irving Taylor; David J Sherlock; Peter M Schlag; John Buckels; David Mayer; Dionne Cain; Richard J Stephens Journal: Lancet Date: 2003-02-01 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Toon Maes; Hans Wildiers; Sam Heye; Wim Demey; Geert Maleux; Patrick Neven; Allan T Van Oosterom; Robert Paridaens Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2007-09-13 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: Jacques Ferlay; Isabelle Soerjomataram; Rajesh Dikshit; Sultan Eser; Colin Mathers; Marise Rebelo; Donald Maxwell Parkin; David Forman; Freddie Bray Journal: Int J Cancer Date: 2014-10-09 Impact factor: 7.396
Authors: M Bertuccelli; A Falcone; S Campoccia; M Conti; I Brunetti; D Caramella; P C Giulianotti; F Mosca; C Bartolozzi; P F Conte Journal: Tumori Date: 1999 Nov-Dec
Authors: C Dilara Savci-Heijink; Hans Halfwerk; Gerrit K J Hooijer; Hugo M Horlings; Jelle Wesseling; Marc J van de Vijver Journal: Breast Cancer Res Treat Date: 2015-03-29 Impact factor: 4.872
Authors: B M Aarts; F M Gómez Muñoz; H Wildiers; V O Dezentjé; T R Baetens; W Schats; M Lopez-Yurda; R C Dresen; B J de Wit-van der Veen; C M Deroose; G Maleux; R G H Beets-Tan; E G Klompenhouwer Journal: Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol Date: 2021-07-28 Impact factor: 2.740