Effects of dose modification of eribulin mesylate in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (26_suppl) ◽  
pp. 157-157 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudio Faria ◽  
Xuan Li ◽  
Annette Powers ◽  
Linda T. Vahdat

157 Background: Eribulin mesylate is indicated for patients with metastatic breast cancer after treatment with ≥ 2 prior chemotherapeutic regimens. Recommended dosing is 1.4 mg/m2on specific cycle days with options for dose modification (dose reduction/delay) based on severity and duration of specific toxicities. The goal for therapy is to administer the full studied dose; however, for patients experiencing an adverse event (AE) the impact of dose modification has not yet been explored. The purpose of this study was to determine the effects of dose modification due to AEs on duration of therapy. Methods: Data from patients receiving eribulin in a phase III open label, randomized clinical trial evaluating eribulin vs. ‘Treatment of Physician’s Choice’ (E7389-G000-305) was utilized. Analyses were performed on the population with AEs. Patients were classified into a dose modification cohort for any dose reduction/delay related to an AE, or a dose non-modification cohort for patients who did not receive a dose modification but experienced an AE. Descriptive statistics were calculated and survival analyses were conducted. Results: Overall, 462 patients had an AE that was treatment-related: 204 patients (44.2%) had dose modification (delay only [61.8%], reduction only [17.6%], and both [20.6%]), and 258 (55.8%) did not have dose modification. Average age was 55 years, and most patients were Caucasian (92.4%). Patients with dose modification had a mean of 7.36 (±4.56) chemotherapy cycles and a median of 143 treatment days, while patients without modification had a mean of 5.71 (±3.68) cycles and a median of 105 treatment days (p < 0.001). The median PFS was also longer in the dose modification cohort (130 vs. 92 days based on independent review). However, there were no statistically significant correlation between PFS and dose modification after adjusting for the length of treatment exposure using time-dependent and landmark approaches. Conclusions: Delaying or reducing the dose of eribulin in patients who experience AEs may allow patients to remain on therapy longer. Further prospective studies are warranted to confirm the impact on overall efficacy and safety.

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.


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)


2020 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1486-1491
Author(s):  
Jacopo Giuliani ◽  
Andrea Bonetti

The aim of this study was to assess the pharmacological costs of CDK4/6-inhibitors (palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib) in hormone receptor positive (HR+)/human epidermal receptor 2-negative (HER2-) advanced or metastatic breast cancer (BC). We have considered pivotal phase III randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of palbociclib, ribociclib and abemaciclib for the treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- advanced or metastatic BC in first-line in association with letrozole or anastrozole (scenario 1) and in subsequent-lines after progression or relapse during previous endocrine therapy (scenario 2).The costs of drugs are at the Pharmacy of our Hospital and are expressed in euros (€). Six phase III RCTs, including 3843 patients, were considered. In the scenario 1, abemaciclib resulted the less expensive at the full dose, with 2246 € per month of progression free survival (PFS)-gained. Overall ribociclib resulted the less expensive considering the reduction in dosage (36.1% in MONALEESA-2 trial versus (vs). 36.0% of palbociclib in PALOMA-2 trial vs. 43.4% of abemaciclib in MONARCH-3 trial). The price was the same for palbociclib and abemaciclib both at full and with dose reduction. In the scenario 2, the situation was similar to the scenario 1, but with lowest costs for ribociclib per month PFS-gained both at full dose (2070 €) and at dose reduction (1391 € and 690 € at 400 mg and 200 mg, respectively). Combining pharmacological costs of drugs with the measure of efficacy represented by the PFS, ribociclib was the less expensive in both scenarios.


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.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document