Dataset Information

Subgroup Analyses from a Phase 3, Open-Label, Randomized Study of Eribulin Mesylate Versus Capecitabine in Pretreated Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE AND METHODS:Our secondary analyses compared survival with eribulin versus capecitabine in various patient subgroups from a phase 3, open-label, randomized study. Eligible women aged ?18 years with advanced/metastatic breast cancer and ?3 prior chemotherapies (?2 for advanced/metastatic disease), including an anthracycline and taxane, were randomized 1:1 to intravenous eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 or twice-daily oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1-14 (21-day cycles). RESULTS:In the intent-to-treat population (eribulin 554 and capecitabine 548), overall survival appeared longer with eribulin than capecitabine in various subgroups, including patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative (15.9 versus 13.5 months, respectively), estrogen receptor-negative (14.4 versus 10.5 months, respectively), and triple-negative (14.4 versus 9.4 months, respectively) disease. Progression-free survival was similar between the treatment arms. CONCLUSIONS:Patients with advanced/metastatic breast cancer and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-, estrogen receptor-, or triple-negative disease may gain particular benefit from eribulin as first-, second-, and third-line chemotherapies. TRIAL REGISTRATION PRIMARY STUDY:This study reports the subgroup analyses of eribulin versus capecitabine from a phase 3, open-label, randomized study (www.clinicaltrials.gov; ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00337103).

SUBMITTER: Twelves C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4927108 | biostudies-literature | 2016

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Subgroup Analyses from a Phase 3, Open-Label, Randomized Study of Eribulin Mesylate Versus Capecitabine in Pretreated Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Twelves Chris C Awada Ahmad A Cortes Javier J Yelle Louise L Velikova Galina G Olivo Martin S MS Song James J Dutcus Corina E CE Kaufman Peter A PA

Breast cancer : basic and clinical research 20160628

<h4>Purpose and methods</h4>Our secondary analyses compared survival with eribulin versus capecitabine in various patient subgroups from a phase 3, open-label, randomized study. Eligible women aged ≥18 years with advanced/metastatic breast cancer and ≤3 prior chemotherapies (≤2 for advanced/metastatic disease), including an anthracycline and taxane, were randomized 1:1 to intravenous eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m(2) on days 1 and 8 or twice-daily oral capecitabine 1250 mg/m(2) on days 1-14 (21-day ...[more]

PMID: 27398025

Similar Datasets

Project description:The clinical benefit of eribulin versus capecitabine was evaluated using health-related quality of life (HRQoL) data from a phase 3 randomized trial in patients with pretreated advanced/metastatic breast cancer (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00337103). The study population has been described previously (Kaufman et al. in J Clin Oncol 33:594-601, 2015). Eligible patients received eribulin (1.4 mg/m(2) intravenously on days 1 and 8) or capecitabine (1.25 g/m(2) orally twice daily on days 1-14) per 21-day cycles. HRQoL was assessed using the European Organisation for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality-of-life Questionnaire-Core 30 questions (QLQ-C30) and breast module-23 questions (QLQ-BR23), administered at baseline through 24 months, until disease progression or other antitumor treatment initiation. Minimally important difference (MID) and time to symptom worsening (TSW) were investigated. 1062 (96.4 %) Patients completed the EORTC questionnaire at baseline; overall, compliance was ?80 %. Patients receiving capecitabine versus eribulin had significantly worse symptoms (higher scores) for nausea/vomiting (MID 8; P < 0.05) and diarrhea (MID 7; P < 0.05). Treatment with eribulin versus capecitabine, led to worse systemic therapy side-effects (dry mouth, different tastes, irritated eyes, feeling ill, hot flushes, headaches, and hair loss; MID 10; P < 0.01). Clinically meaningful worsening was observed for future perspective (MID 10; P < 0.05) with capecitabine and for systemic therapy side-effects scale (MID 10; P < 0.01) with eribulin. Patients receiving capecitabine experienced more-rapid deterioration in body image (by 2.9 months) and future perspective (by 1.4 months; P < 0.05) compared with those on eribulin; the opposite was observed for systemic side-effects where patients receiving eribulin experienced more-rapid deterioration than those receiving capecitabine (by 2 months; P < 0.05). Eribulin and capecitabine were found to have similar impact on patient functioning with no overall difference in HRQoL. Patients receiving eribulin reported worse systemic side-effects of chemotherapy but reduced gastrointestinal toxicity compared with capecitabine.

Project description:Ipilimumab is an approved immunotherapy that has shown an overall survival benefit in patients with cutaneous metastatic melanoma in two phase III trials. As results of registrational trials might not answer all questions regarding safety and efficacy of ipilimumab in patients with advanced melanoma seen in daily clinical practice, the Dermatologic Cooperative Oncology Group conducted a phase II study to assess the efficacy and safety of ipilimumab in patients with different subtypes of metastatic melanoma.We undertook a multicenter phase II study in melanoma patients irrespective of location of the primary melanoma. Here we present data on patients with pretreated metastatic cutaneous, mucosal and occult melanoma who received up to four cycles of ipilimumab administered at a dose of 3 mg/kg in 3 week intervals. Tumor assessments were conducted at baseline, weeks 12, 24, 36 and 48 according to RECIST 1.1 criteria. Adverse events (AEs), including immune-related AEs were graded according to National Cancer Institute Common Toxicity Criteria (CTC) v.4.0. Primary endpoint was the OS rate at 12 months.103 pretreated patients received at least one dose of ipilimumab, including 83 cutaneous, seven mucosal and 13 occult melanomas. 1-year OS rates for cutaneous, mucosal and occult melanoma were 38 %, 14 % and 27 %, respectively. Median OS was 6.8 months (95 % CI 5.3-9.9) for cutaneous, 9.6 months (95 % CI 1.6-11.1) for mucosal, and 9.9 months (lower 95 % CI 2.3, upper 95 % CI non-existent) for occult melanoma. Overall response rates for cutaneous, mucosal and occult melanoma were 16 %, 17 % and 11 %, respectively. Eleven patients had partial response (16 %) and ten patients experienced stable disease (14 %), none achieved a complete response. Treatment-related AEs were observed in 71 patients (69 %), including 20 grade 3-4 events (19 %). No new and unexpected safety findings were noted.Ipilimumab is a treatment option for pretreated patients with advanced cutaneous melanoma seen in daily routine. Toxicity was manageable when treated as per protocol-specific guidelines.Clinical Trials.gov NCT01355120.

Dataset Information

Subgroup Analyses from a Phase 3, Open-Label, Randomized Study of Eribulin Mesylate Versus Capecitabine in Pretreated Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Publications

Subgroup Analyses from a Phase 3, Open-Label, Randomized Study of Eribulin Mesylate Versus Capecitabine in Pretreated Patients with Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure