A randomized phase III study to determine the efficacy of capecitabine in addition to a taxane and bevacizumab as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1082-1082 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-Joachim Lueck ◽  
Kristina Luebbe ◽  
Joachim Bischoff ◽  
Nicolai Maass ◽  
Gabriele Feisel ◽  
...  

1082 Background: Conventional chemotherapy combined with novel molecular targeted agents has been proven effective and tolerable in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Taxanes (T) plus bevacizumab (B) and T plus capecitabine (X) showed a benefit in progression free survival (PFS) compared to T alone. Life-threatening or highly symptomatic situations require poly-chemotherapies in MBC patients; therefore a combination of all 3 drugs appears reasonable. Methods: TABEA (NCT01200212) is a prospective, randomized, open label, phase III trial comparing T plus B +/- X as 1st-line therapy in MBC. Patients with histologically confirmed HER2- locally advanced or MBC were included. All patients received T (paclitaxel 80 mg/m2 i.v. d1,8,15 q22 or docetaxel 75 mg/m2 i.v. d1 q22) and B (15 mg/kg i.v. d1 q22) (TB) and were randomized to X (1800 mg/m² daily d1-14 q22) in addition and concurrently to TB (TBX) or TB alone. Randomization was stratified by receptor status, planned taxane, and disease free interval (≤ or >12 months). Primary objective was PFS. Secondary objectives were response rate and duration, clinical benefit rate (CR, PR, stable disease ≥ 24 weeks), 3yr overall survival, PFS in patients ≥ 65 years, toxicity, and compliance. Sample size calculation assumed a PFS of 10 and 13.3 months for TB and TBX, respectively (HR=0.75) requiring 432 patients and 386 events with 2-sided α=0.05 and β=0.2. Interim analysis was planned after 25% of required events (n=96). Results: Planned interim futility and safety analyses after 100 documented events in 202 patients have shown no efficacy benefit and higher toxicity in the TBX arm. For PFS, HR=1.061, 95% CI (0.715, 1.576) was observed, futility boundary was crossed. Overall grade 3-4 adverse events (e.g., thrombopenia, diarrhea, hand-foot-syndrome) (72.3 vs. 57.4%, p=0.039)and serious adverse events (40.6 vs. 24.8%, p=0.016) rates were higher for TBX after 16.3 months median follow up. There were 6 deaths in the TBX vs. 1 in the TB arm. Recruitment and therapy were stopped on 5th Oct 2012 following the advice from the IDMC. Conclusions: TABEA failed to show an improvement using the 3 drug regimen TBX in high-risk MBC patients. Clinical trial information: NCT 01200212.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1076-1076
Author(s):  
Nanlin Hu ◽  
Peng Yuan

1076 Background: There is no standard treatment strategy for patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer suffering progression after one prior chemotherapy with metastasis setting. Apatinib is a tyrosine kinase inhibitor targeting vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2(VEGFR-2). Etoposide is a highly active chemo-drug in the treatment of advanced breast cancer, both as a single agent or in combination regimens, and is well tolerated, with a low incidence of severe toxicity. This study is performed to assessed the efficacy and safety of apatinib and oral etoposide in patients with HER2 negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer for whom at least one lines of prior chemotherapy had failed. Methods: This open-label, single arm study enrolled patients with HER2-negative breast cancer, pretreated with anthracycline, taxanes, and who failed in the metastatic setting at least one prior chemotherapy regimens and at least one endocrine drug for hormone receptor-positive patients. Apatinib was administered 425/500mg daily according to patients ECOG(Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group) status, oral etoposide was administered 50mg/m2 for first 10 days in a 21-days cycle. The primary end point of this study was progression free survival (PFS). Secondary end points included objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), overall survival (OS), and toxicity. The treatment duration is until disease progression or intolerability of apatinib or oral etoposide. Results: 20 eligible patients were enrolled in this, open-label, single arm study and received apatinib and oral etoposide with a median age of 54 years old(range 36 to 66 years). Median follow-up time was 11months. 20 patients were eligible for efficacy analysis. Median PFS was 5.6 months (95% confidence interval (CI), 4.01 m – 8.42 m). ORR was 20% (4/20). DCR was 70% (14/20). Median OS was 11.2 months (95% CI, 9.6 m – 14.95 m). The most common grade 3/4 treatment-related AEs were hypertension (30%), and proteinuria (5%), nausea (5%). 35%(7/20) patients had dose reduction because of adverse events, after that all adverse events can return to less than 2 grade. Conclusions: Apatinib with oral etoposide exhibited objective efficacy in pretreated, metastatic HER2-negative breast cancer with manageable toxicity. Prospective studies enrolling more patients are needed. Clinical trial information: NCT03535961.


2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 594-601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Kaufman ◽  
Ahmad Awada ◽  
Chris Twelves ◽  
Louise Yelle ◽  
Edith A. Perez ◽  
...  

Purpose This phase III randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00337103) compared eribulin with capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and Methods Women with MBC who had received prior anthracycline- and taxane-based therapy were randomly assigned to receive eribulin or capecitabine as their first-, second-, or third-line chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic disease. Stratification factors were human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status and geographic region. Coprimary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results Median OS times for eribulin (n = 554) and capecitabine (n = 548) were 15.9 and 14.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.00; P = .056). Median PFS times for eribulin and capecitabine were 4.1 and 4.2 months, respectively (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.25; P = .30). Objective response rates were 11.0% for eribulin and 11.5% for capecitabine. Global health status and overall quality-of-life scores over time were similar in the treatment arms. Both treatments had manageable safety profiles consistent with their known adverse effects; most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. Conclusion In this phase III study, eribulin was not shown to be superior to capecitabine with regard to OS or PFS.


2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (23) ◽  
pp. 5314-5322 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen Chan ◽  
Max E. Scheulen ◽  
Stephen Johnston ◽  
Klaus Mross ◽  
Fatima Cardoso ◽  
...  

Purpose In this study, two doses of temsirolimus (CCI-779), a novel inhibitor of the mammalian target of rapamycin, were evaluated for efficacy, safety, and pharmacokinetics in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who had been heavily pretreated. Patients and Methods Patients (n = 109) were randomly assigned to receive 75 or 250 mg of temsirolimus weekly as a 30-minute intravenous infusion. Patients were evaluated for tumor response, time to tumor progression, adverse events, and pharmacokinetics of temsirolimus. Results Temsirolimus produced an objective response rate of 9.2% (10 partial responses) in the intent-to-treat population. Median time to tumor progression was 12.0 weeks. Efficacy was similar for both dose levels but toxicity was more common with the higher dose level, especially grade 3 or 4 depression (10% of patients at the 250-mg dose level, 0% at the 75-mg dose level). The most common temsirolimus-related adverse events of all grades were mucositis (70%), maculopapular rash (51%), and nausea (43%). The most common, clinically important grade 3 or 4 adverse events were mucositis (9%), leukopenia (7%), hyperglycemia (7%), somnolence (6%), thrombocytopenia (5%), and depression (5%). Conclusion In heavily pretreated patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer, 75 and 250 mg temsirolimus showed antitumor activity and 75 mg temsirolimus showed a generally tolerable safety profile.


2006 ◽  
Vol 9 (S1) ◽  
pp. 61-79
Author(s):  

This section provides current contact details and a summary of recent or ongoing clinical trials being coordinated by Dutch breast cancer trialists' group (BOOG). Clinical trials include:An open label randomized (inter)national multicenter comparative trial of 5 years adjuvant endocrine therapy with an LHRH agonist plus an aromatase inhibitor (goserelin + anastrozole) versus five courses FE90C chemotherapy followed by the same endocrine therapy in pre- or perimenopausal patients with hormone receptor-positive primary breast cancer (PRemenopausal Optimal Management IS Endocrine therapy). BOOG 2002-01/PROMISE. ISRCTN23561723Open label, comparative, randomized, multicenter, study of trastuzumab (Herceptin) given with docetaxel (Taxotere) versus sequential single agent therapy with trastuzumab followed by docetaxel as first-line treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients with HER2neu overexpression. BOOG 2002-02/HERTAX ISRCTN13770586Micro-metastases and Isolated tumour cells: Robust and Relevant Or Rubbish? The MIRROR study in BREAST CANCER. BOOG 2003-03/ZonMW 3214Radiation dose intensity study in breast cancer in young women: a randomized phase III trial of additional dose to the tumor bed. BOOG 2004-01/Young Boost SRCTN45066831Microarray analysis in breast cancer to Tailor Adjuvant Drugs Or Regimens, a randomized phase III study. MATADOR, BOOG 2005-02, CKTO 2004-04 ISRCTN61893718A prospective randomised, open, multicentre, phase III study to assess different Durations of Anastrozole therapy after 2–3 years Tamoxifen as Adjuvant therapy in postmenopausal women with breast cancer. 2006-01/DATAA randomized, open-label phase III study of first line chemotherapy in elderly metastatic breast cancer patients, comparing intravenous pegylated liposomal doxorubicin with oral capecitabine; and the incorporation of a complete geriatric assessment. 2006-02/OMEGABOOG participation in International studies:. BOOG 2001-01/TEAM trial. BOOG 2001-02/AMAROS (EORTC 10981/22023). BOOG 2002-04/HERA (BIG 1-01/EORTC 10011/BO16348B). BOOG 2003-02 (BIG 1-02/IBCSG 27-02). BOOG 2003-04 (GBG 29). BOOG 2004-02/TBP (GBG 26, BIG 3-05). BOOG 2005-01/CASA (IBCSG 32-05/BIG 1-05). BOOG 2005-03/MINDACT (EORTC 10041, BIG 3-04). BOOG 2006-03/SUPREMO (BIG 2-04). BOOG 2006-04/Adjuvant lapatinib study (BIG 2-06/EGF106708)


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document