scholarly journals Phase III Open-Label Randomized Study of Eribulin Mesylate Versus Capecitabine in Patients With Locally Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated With an Anthracycline and a Taxane

2015 ◽  
Vol 33 (6) ◽  
pp. 594-601 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A. Kaufman ◽  
Ahmad Awada ◽  
Chris Twelves ◽  
Louise Yelle ◽  
Edith A. Perez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Her2 Status ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Eribulin Mesylate

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.

A phase III, open-label, randomized study of eribulin mesylate versus capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes: Subgroup analyses.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1049-1049 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter Andrew Kaufman ◽  
Javier Cortes ◽  
Ahmad Awada ◽  
Louise Yelle ◽  
Edith A. Perez ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Randomized Study ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Her2 Status ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Eribulin Mesylate ◽  
Prior Chemotherapy ◽  
Metastatic Setting ◽  
Subgroup Analyses

1049^ Background: This phase III study, comparing eribulin versus capecitabine, showed a non-significant trend for superior overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR] 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77, 1.00]; p = 0.056) but not progression-free survival (PFS; HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.93, 1.25]; p = 0.31). Pre-specified exploratory subgroup analyses previously presented showed that patients with triple-negative, ER-negative or HER2-negative disease may have a greater benefit in OS with eribulin compared with capecitabine. Here we present further pre-specified exploratory analyses of OS and PFS. Methods: Patients (eribulin n=554; capecitabine n=548) with locally advanced or MBC had received ≤3 prior chemotherapy regimens (≤2 for advanced disease), including an anthracycline and a taxane. Patients were randomized (stratified for geographic region and HER2 status) 1:1 to 21-day cycles of eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 and 8 or capecitabine 1.25 g/m2BID orally on days 1-14. Further pre-specified exploratory subgroups included: age; receptor status; number and setting of prior chemotherapy regimen(s); sites of disease; number of organs involved; and time to progression after last chemotherapy. Results: From analyses for OS, patients with only non-visceral disease (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33, 0.80), with >2 organs involved (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62, 0.90), who had progressed >6 months after last chemotherapy (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52, 0.95), or who had received an anthracycline and/or a taxane in the metastatic setting (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72, 0.98), appeared to benefit more from treatment with eribulin compared with capecitabine. For OS, in no subgroup was a trend favoring capecitabine seen. Data for other pre-specified subgroups for both OS and PFS will be presented. Conclusions: In addition to patients with triple-, ER-, or HER2-negative disease, further pre-specified exploratory analyses suggest that other patient subgroups may particularly benefit from treatment with eribulin; further studies are warranted to address these hypotheses. Clinical trial information: NCT00337103.

Phase II randomized, open-label study of YM155 (sepantronium bromide) plus docetaxel versus docetaxel alone as first-line treatment for HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer.

2013 ◽  
Vol 31 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 548-548
Author(s):  
Michael R. Clemens ◽  
Anne Therese Keating ◽  
Oleg Gladkov ◽  
Fei Jie ◽  
Joyce Steinberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Randomized Study ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Progression Free Survival ◽  
Line Treatment ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Prior Therapy

548 Background: YM155 (YM) is a small molecule survivin suppressant. In a phase I/II study of YM plus docetaxel (D) in solid tumors evidence of anti-tumor activity was observed in women with human epidermal growth factor 2 non-overexpressing (HER2 negative) metastatic breast cancer (mBC). Methods: This was a randomized study of YM plus D versus D as 1st line treatment in subjects with HER2 negative mBC. Eligibility criteria were: ECOG < 1, no prior chemotherapy for mBC, and at least one measurable lesion. Primary endpoint was progression free survival (PFS); secondary endpoints were: objective response rate (ORR), overall survival (OS), duration of response (DOR), clinical benefit rate (CBR), time to response (TTR) and safety. YM was administered at 5 mg/m2/day as a 168 hr continuous infusion followed by 14 Day (d) observation and D was administered at 75 mg/m2over 1 hr on d1 every 21d. In the control arm, D was dosed per investigator choice q 21d. Results: 101 subjects were randomized (50 YM + D; 51 D). Median (m) age 55 (range: 25 – 79), 25% had triple negative disease, > 60% had bone and lymph mets, 86% had prior therapy for BC. mPFS (days) was 251 (95%CI: 176 – 333) YM + D vs 252 (95%CI: 202-433) D (p=0.34). ORR, CBR and TTR (YM+D; D): 26% vs. 25.5%; 82% vs. 84.3% and 45 vs 59 d. OS data are immature but showed no difference (p=0.911). Adverse events [AEs (> 25%)] [YM + D% vs D %]: neutropenia 83 vs 84, alopecia 62.5 vs 53, fatigue 50 vs 41.2, nausea 35.4 vs 41.2, leucopenia 27 vs 33 and dyspnoea 33 vs 14. Common (>10%) serious AEs [YM + D% vs D%]: febrile neutropenia 21 vs 8 and neutropenia 10 vs 8. Conclusions: Preclinical and clinical evidence suggested the combination of YM + D may offer additional benefit to D alone in subjects with mBC. This study showed no difference in efficacy, but the combination appeared to be well tolerated. Clinical trial information: NCT01038804.

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 ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Locally Advanced ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Line Therapy

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.

Neratinib + capecitabine versus lapatinib + capecitabine in patients with HER2+ metastatic breast cancer previously treated with ≥ 2 HER2-directed regimens: Findings from the multinational, randomized, phase III NALA trial.

2019 ◽  
Vol 37 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. 1002-1002 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cristina Saura ◽  
Mafalda Oliveira ◽  
Yin-Hsun Feng ◽  
Ming-Shen Dai ◽  
Sara A. Hurvitz ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Kinase Inhibitor ◽  
Objective Response ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Stage Iv ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Cns Disease ◽  
Patient Reported

1002 Background: NALA (ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01808573) is a multinational, randomized, open-label, phase III trial of neratinib (an irreversible pan-HER tyrosine kinase inhibitor [TKI]) + capecitabine (N+C) vs lapatinib (a reversible dual TKI) + capecitabine (L+C) in patients with stage IV HER2+ metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who had received ≥2 prior HER2-directed regimens for MBC. Methods: Patients were randomized 1:1 to N (240 mg qd po) + C (750 mg/m2 bid po) or L (1250 mg qd po) + C (1000 mg/m2 bid po). Co-primary endpoints were centrally assessed progression-free survival (PFS) and overall survival (OS). Secondary endpoints were investigator-assessed PFS; objective response rate (ORR); duration of response (DoR); clinical benefit rate (CBR); time to intervention for symptomatic metastatic central nervous system (CNS) disease; safety; and patient-reported health outcomes. Results: 621 patients were randomized (307 to N+C; 314 to L+C). The risk of disease progression or death was reduced by 24% with N+C vs L+C (HR = 0.76; 95% CI 0.63–0.93; p = 0.006); 6- and 12-month PFS rates were 47.2% vs 37.8% and 28.8% vs 14.8% for N+C vs L+C, respectively. OS rates at 6 and 12 months were 90.2% vs 87.5% and 72.5% vs 66.7% for N+C vs L+C, respectively (HR = 0.88; 95% CI 0.72–1.07; p = 0.2086). ORR in patients with measurable disease at screening was improved with N+C vs L+C (32.8% vs 26.7%; p = 0.1201), as was CBR (44.5% vs 35.6%; p = 0.0328) and DoR (HR = 0.50; 95% CI 0.33–0.74; p = 0.0004). Time to intervention for symptomatic CNS disease (overall cumulative incidence 22.8% vs 29.2%; p = 0.043) was delayed with N+C vs L+C. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were similar between arms, but there was a higher rate of grade 3 diarrhea with N+C vs L+C (24.4% vs 12.5%). TEAEs leading to neratinib/lapatinib discontinuation were lower with neratinib (10.9%) than with lapatinib (14.5%). Conclusions: N+C significantly improved PFS with a trend towards improved OS vs L+C. N+C also resulted in a delayed time to intervention for symptomatic CNS disease. Tolerability was similar between the two arms, with no new safety signals observed. Clinical trial information: NCT01808573.

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
Keyword(s):  
Breast Cancer ◽  
Metastatic Breast Cancer ◽  
Dose Reduction ◽  
Metastatic Breast ◽  
Phase Iii ◽  
Open Label ◽  
Eribulin Mesylate ◽  
Dose Modification ◽  
Length Of Treatment ◽  
The Impact

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.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document