| Literature DB >> 31938949 |
Anupama Suresh1,2, Akannsha Ganju1,2, Evan Morgan1,2, Marilly Palettas3, Julie A Stephens3, Joseph Liu1,2, Michael Berger1,4, Craig Vargo1,4, Anne Noonan1,2, Raquel Reinbolt1,2, Mathew Cherian1,2, Jeffrey VanDeusen1,2, Sagar Sardesai1,2, Robert Wesolowski1,2, Daniel G Stover1,2, Maryam Lustberg1,2, Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy1,2, Nicole Williams5,6,7.
Abstract
Purpose Capecitabine is widely used as a single agent on a 21-day cycle in the management of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Our primary objective was to compare the standard dosing of capecitabine (Arm A: days 1-14 on 21-day cycle) to biweekly dosing (Arm B: days 1-7 and 15-21 on 28-day cycle) using retrospective data analysis. Methods 166 patients with MBC treated with single agent capecitabine at The Ohio State University from 2002 to 2014 were considered eligible. Median time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier (KM) methods. KM curves were compared using log-rank tests with Holm's correction for multiplicity. Results Patients were grouped by dose schedule into one of three arms: Arm A (21-day cycle; capecitabine given at 1000 mg/m2 orally, twice daily on days 1-14 of 21-day cycle); Arm B (28-day cycle; capecitabine given at 1000 mg/m2 orally, twice daily on days 1-7 and 15-21 of 28-day cycle); and Arm C (changeover regimen where patients started on the 21-day cycle, but changed to a 28-day cycle for tolerability). No difference was found in TTF or OS for patients with MBC between those who received capecitabine on either standard dosing (Arm A) and those on a biweekly cycle (Arm B or C). Overall, 41% of patients required dose reduction. Conclusions Our single institution experience showed that alternate dosing of capecitabine (biweekly, 28-day cycle) may be a reasonable alternative to standard 21-day cycle with similar efficacy and fewer dose reductions.Entities:
Keywords: Capecitabine; Dosing schedules; Metastatic breast cancer; Survival analysis
Year: 2020 PMID: 31938949 DOI: 10.1007/s10637-020-00891-9
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Invest New Drugs ISSN: 0167-6997 Impact factor: 3.850