Dataset Information

A randomized trial of eribulin monotherapy versus eribulin plus anlotinib in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Eribulin mesylate is a novel, nontaxane, microtubule dynamics inhibitor. In this study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of eribulin versus eribulin plus the oral small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor anlotinib in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

Patients and methods

In this single-center, open-label, phase II clinical study (NCT05206656) conducted in a Chinese hospital, patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracycline- or taxane-based chemotherapy were randomized (1 : 1) to receive eribulin alone or in combination with anlotinib. The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS).

Results

From June 2020 to April 2022, a total of 80 patients were randomly assigned to either eribulin monotherapy or eribulin plus anlotinib combination therapy, with 40 patients in each group. The data cut-off was 10 August 2022. The median PFS was 3.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8-5.5 months] for eribulin and 5.1 months (95% CI 4.5-6.9 months) for eribulin plus anlotinib (hazard ratio = 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.98; P = 0.04). The objective response rates were 32.5% versus 52.5% (P = 0.07), respectively, and disease control rates were 67.5% versus 92.5% (P = 0.01), respectively. Patients <50 years of age, with an Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group performance status score of 0, visceral metastasis, number of treatment lines of four or more, hormone receptor negative (triple-negative), and HER2 low expression appeared to benefit more from combined treatment. The most common adverse events in both groups were leukopenia (n = 28, 70.0%, patients in the eribulin monotherapy group versus n = 35, 87.5%, patients in the combination therapy group), aspartate aminotransferase elevations (n = 28, 70.0%, versus n = 35, 87.5%), neutropenia (n = 25, 62.5%, versus n = 31, 77.5%), and alanine aminotransferase elevations (n = 25, 62.5%, versus n = 30, 75.0%).

Conclusion

Eribulin plus anlotinib can be considered an alternative treatment option for HER2-negative locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer.

SUBMITTER: Liu B

PROVIDER: S-EPMC10265607 | biostudies-literature | 2023 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

A randomized trial of eribulin monotherapy versus eribulin plus anlotinib in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

Liu B B Liu L L Ran J J Xie N N Li J J Xiao H H Yang X X Tian C C Wu H H Lu J J Gao J J Hu X X Cao M M Shui Z Z Hu Z-Y ZY Ouyang Q Q

ESMO open 20230606 3

<h4>Background</h4>Eribulin mesylate is a novel, nontaxane, microtubule dynamics inhibitor. In this study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of eribulin versus eribulin plus the oral small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor anlotinib in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.<h4>Patients and methods</h4>In this single-center, open-label, phase II clinical study (NCT05206656) conducted in a Chinese hospital, patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-nega ...[more]

PMID: 37285718

Similar Datasets

Project description:PurposeThis randomized phase 2 study sought to assess the treatment effect of a finite duration of apalutamide with and without androgen deprivation therapy (ADT) in biochemically recurrent prostate cancer (BCR PC). Materials and Methods. Patients with BCR PC after primary definitive therapy and prostate-specific antigen (PSA) doubling time ≤12 months were randomized to open-label apalutamide (240 mg/d) alone, apalutamide plus ADT, or ADT alone (1 : 1:1 ratio) for 12 months followed by a 12-month observation period (NCT01790126). Mean changes from baseline in Functional Assessment of Cancer Therapy-Prostate (FACT-P) at 12 months (primary endpoint) and other prespecified assessments of health-related quality of life (HRQoL), PSA nadir, time to PSA progression, time to testosterone recovery, recovered testosterone >150 ng/dL without PSA progression at 24 months, and molecular markers were evaluated.ResultsIn 90 enrolled patients (apalutamide plus ADT (n = 31), apalutamide (n = 29), ADT (n = 30)), FACT-P at 12 months was not significantly different between apalutamide, ADT and apalutamide, and ADT groups. Addition of apalutamide to ADT prolonged time to PSA progression but this change did not reach statistical significance (hazard ratio (HR): 0.56, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.23-1.36, P=0.196); time to testosterone recovery was similar in the ADT-containing groups. In apalutamide plus ADT, apalutamide, and ADT groups, 37.9%, 37.0%, and 19.2% of patients, respectively, had testosterone >150 ng/dL at 24 months without confirmed PSA progression. Of the few biomarkers expressed in blood, EPHA3 was significantly associated with shorter time to PSA progression (P=0.02) in the overall population.ConclusionsHRQoL was similar in patients treated with apalutamide alone, ADT alone, or their combination, although apalutamide plus ADT did not demonstrate statistically significant noninferiority in change from baseline in overall HRQoL. The aggregated efficacy and safety outcomes support further evaluation of apalutamide plus ADT in BCR PC.

Project description:BackgroundEribulin mesylate is a nontaxane microtubule dynamics inhibitor approved for second-line (European Union) or third-line (United States) treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Two phase 2 single trials, evaluating first-line eribulin as monotherapy (Study 206; NCT01268150) or in combination with trastuzumab (Study 208; NCT01269346) in locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer, demonstrated objective response rates of 28.6 and 71.2%, respectively. Median progression-free survival was 6.8 and 11.6 months, respectively. Tolerability profiles were similar to those from previous studies. This secondary analysis was conducted to assess health-related quality of life (HRQoL) in both phase 2 trials.MethodsPatients received eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 intravenously on days 1 and 8 of each 21-day cycle. Patients in Study 208 also received intravenous trastuzumab on day 1 of each cycle (8 mg/kg in cycle 1, then 6 mg/kg). HRQoL was assessed by the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Quality-of-Life (QLQ-C30) assessment tool and the Quality-of-Life Questionnaire for Breast Cancer (QLQ-BR23) at baseline and cycles 2, 4, and 6. Results for clinically meaningful changes were based on previously published minimum important differences.ResultsOf the 108 patients (56 in Study 206 and 52 in Study 208) treated, 57 and 87%, respectively, completed 6 cycles. Completion rates for both questionnaires were 94 and 98%, respectively, at cycle 6. Most patients had stable/improved HRQoL scores with some exceptions; for example, more patients experienced a worsening in cognitive functioning and systemic therapy side effects than experienced improvement. Mean QLQ-C30 symptom scores correlated with corresponding adverse event rates for nausea/vomiting, dyspnea, appetite loss, constipation, and diarrhea in Study 206 and for fatigue, nausea/vomiting, pain, dyspnea, insomnia, constipation, and diarrhea in Study 208.ConclusionsFirst-line eribulin ± trastuzumab therapy did not lead to deterioration of overall HRQoL in most patients, with more than 60% of patients having stable/improved global health status/quality-of-life scores. Eribulin has been demonstrated to be comparable with other chemotherapy agents with an acceptable safety profile. Therefore, further evaluation is warranted to determine whether eribulin ± trastuzumab therapy may be a potential option for first-line treatment in some patients with metastatic breast cancer who were recently treated in the neoadjuvant setting.Trial registrationNCT01268150 (December 29, 2010), NCT01269346 (January 4, 2011).

Project description:BackgroundEribulin mesylate (ERI; Halaven®) is a microtubule inhibitor approved in the United States for metastatic breast cancer patients with at least two prior chemotherapy regimens for metastatic breast cancer, and in the European Union in locally advanced breast cancer or metastatic breast cancer patients who progressed after at least one chemotherapy for advanced disease. This network meta-analysis compared the efficacy and safety of ERI versus other chemotherapies in this setting.MethodsSystematic searches conducted in MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Clinical Trials identified randomized controlled trials of locally advanced breast cancer/metastatic breast cancer chemotherapies in second- or later-line settings. Efficacy assessment included pre-specified subgroup analysis of breast cancer subtypes. Included studies were assessed for quality using the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination tool. Bayesian network meta-analysis estimated primary outcomes of overall survival and progression-free survival using fixed-effect models. Comparators included: capecitabine (CAP), gemcitabine (GEM), ixabepilone (IXA), utidelone (UTI), treatment by physician's choice (TPC), and vinorelbine (VIN).ResultsThe network meta-analysis included seven trials. Results showed that second- or later-line patients treated with ERI had statistically longer overall survival versus TPC (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81; credible interval [CrI]: 0.66-0.99) or GEM+VIN (0.62; 0.42-0.90) and statistically longer progression-free survival versus TPC (0.76; 0.64-0.90), but statistically shorter progression-free survival versus CAP+IXA (1.40; 1.17-1.67) and CAP+UTI (1.61; 1.23-2.12). In triple negative breast cancer, ERI had statistically longer overall survival versus CAP (0.70; 0.54-0.90); no statistical differences in progression-free survival were observed in triple negative breast cancer.ConclusionsThis network meta-analysis suggests that ERI may provide an overall survival benefit in the overall locally advanced breast cancer/metastatic breast cancer populations and triple negative breast cancer subgroup compared to standard treatments. These findings support the use of ERI in second- or later-line treatment of patients with locally advanced breast cancer/metastatic breast cancer.

Project description:BackgroundTreatment options for refractory metastatic colorectal cancer (mCRC) were limited. Anlotinib is a novel multitarget tyrosine kinase inhibitor. ALTER0703 study was conducted to assess efficacy and safety of anlotinib for patients with refractory mCRC.Materials and methodsThis was a multicenter, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized phase III trial involving 33 hospitals in China. Patients had taken at least two lines of therapies were 2:1 randomized to receive oral anlotinib (12 mg/day; days 1-14; 21 days per cycle) or placebo, plus best supportive care. Randomization was stratified by previous VEGF-targeting treatments and time from diagnosis to metastases. The primary endpoint was overall survival (OS). The secondary endpoints were progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), quality of life (QoL), and safety.ResultsA total of 419 patients (anlotinib: 282; placebo: 137) were treated from December 2014 to August 2016. The median PFS was improved in anlotinib group (4.1 months; 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.4-4.5) over placebo group (1.5 months; 95% CI, 1.4-1.5), with a hazard ratio (HR) of 0.34 (95% CI, 0.27-0.43; p < .0001). However, median OS was similar between two groups (8.6 months; 95% CI, 7.8-9.7 vs. 7.2 months; 95% CI, 6.2-8.8; HR, 1.02; p = .870). Improvements of ORR and DCR were observed in anlotinib over placebo. The most common grade ≥ 3 anlotinib related adverse events were hypertension (20.92%), increased γ-GT (7.09%), and hand-foot skin reaction (6.38%).ConclusionAnlotinib was tolerated in Chinese patients with refractory mCRC. Although OS did not reach significant difference, anlotinib still provided clinical benefits by substantially prolonged PFS in these patients.Implications for practiceIn this randomized clinical trial that included 419 patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, substantial prolonged in progression-free survival was noted in patients who received anlotinib compared with those given placebo. Improvements on objective response rate and disease control rate was also observed in anlotinib group. However, overall survival was similar between the two groups. In a word, in third-line or above treatment of Chinese patients with refractory metastatic colorectal cancer, anlotinib provided clinical benefit by significantly prolonged progression-free survival.

Project description:Background:Homologous recombination defects in BRCA1/2-mutated tumors result in sensitivity to poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitors, which interfere with DNA damage repair. Veliparib, a potent poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor, enhanced the antitumor activity of platinum agents and temozolomide in early phase clinical trials. This phase II study examined the safety and efficacy of intermittent veliparib with carboplatin/paclitaxel (VCP) or temozolomide (VT) in patients with BRCA1/2-mutated breast cancer. Patients and methods:Eligible patients ≥18 years with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer and a deleterious BRCA1/2 germline mutation were randomized 1 : 1 : 1 to VCP, VT, or placebo plus carboplatin/paclitaxel (PCP). Primary end point was progression-free survival (PFS); secondary end points included overall survival (OS) and overall response rate (ORR). Results:Of 290 randomized patients, 284 were BRCA+, confirmed by central laboratory. For VCP versus PCP, median PFS was 14.1 and 12.3 months, respectively [hazard ratio (HR) 0.789; 95% CI 0.536-1.162; P = 0.227], interim median OS 28.3 and 25.9 months (HR 0.750; 95% CI 0.503-1.117; P = 0.156), and ORR 77.8% and 61.3% (P = 0.027). For VT (versus PCP), median PFS was 7.4 months (HR 1.858; 95% CI 1.278-2.702; P = 0.001), interim median OS 19.1 months (HR 1.483; 95% CI 1.032-2.131; P = 0.032), and ORR 28.6% (P < 0.001). Safety profile was comparable between carboplatin/paclitaxel arms. Adverse events (all grades) of neutropenia, anemia, alopecia, and neuropathy were less frequent with VT versus PCP. Conclusion:Numerical but not statistically significant increases in both PFS and OS were observed in patients with BRCA1/2-mutated recurrent/metastatic breast cancer receiving VCP compared with PCP. The addition of veliparib to carboplatin/paclitaxel significantly improved ORR. There was no clinically meaningful increase in toxicity with VCP versus PCP. VT was inferior to PCP. An ongoing phase III trial is evaluating VCP versus PCP, with optional continuation single-agent therapy with veliparib/placebo if chemotherapy is discontinued without progression, in this patient population. Clinical trial information:NCT01506609.

Project description:BackgroundThe global burden of breast cancer (BC) is high, especially in advanced stages. CDK 4/6 inhibitors represent a paradigm shift in the treatment of advanced BC HR+/HER2-, given the clinically and statistically significant gain in overall survival associated with this new class of medications. Nevertheless, as an innovation, the incorporation of these drugs impacts healthcare budgets, requiring cost-effectiveness analyses for decision-making. The aim of this study was to evaluate the cost-effectiveness of ribociclib plus letrozole compared with palbociclib plus letrozole or letrozole as monotherapy for first-line treatment of postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- locally advanced or metastatic BC (aBC) from a Brazilian private healthcare system perspective.MethodsA model including progression-free survival (PFS), progressed disease, and death health states was used to simulate lifetime costs and outcomes. PFS and overall survival were derived from the MONALEESA-2 trial (lifetime horizon). Healthcare costs included drug acquisition and monitoring, subsequent therapies, adverse events, and end-of-life costs. Effectiveness was measured in quality-adjusted life-years (QALYs). Deterministic and probabilistic sensitivity analyses were performed.ResultsThe total cost of treatment with ribociclib plus letrozole was USD 72,091.82 versus USD 92,749.64 for palbociclib plus letrozole. Total QALYs were 3.30 and 3.16, respectively. Base-case analysis showed ribociclib as dominant over palbociclib in first-line treatment of women with HR+/HER2- aBC, associated with cost savings and QALY gains. The total cost of treatment with ribociclib plus letrozole was USD 83,058.73 versus USD 29,215.10 for letrozole. Total QALYs were 3.84 and 2.61, respectively. Compared with letrozole, ribociclib plus letrozole was associated with an incremental cost of USD 53,843.64 and an incremental QALY gain of 1.23, with incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of USD 43,826.91 per QALY gained.ConclusionsAs demonstrated by the cost-effectiveness dominance over palbociclib, ribociclib results in savings when used as first-line treatment in postmenopausal women with HR+/HER2- aBC, warranting incorporation in the private healthcare system.

Dataset Information

A randomized trial of eribulin monotherapy versus eribulin plus anlotinib in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

Background

Patients and methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

A randomized trial of eribulin monotherapy versus eribulin plus anlotinib in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets