Dataset Information

Study on the progression types of cancer in patients with breast cancer undergoing eribulin chemotherapy and tumor microenvironment.

ABSTRACT: Recently, the concepts of progression due to pre-existing lesions (PPL) and progression due to new metastasis (PNM) have been proposed to differentiate the progression types of treatment-resistant cancers. Previously, the differences between these two progression types did not affect the determination of treatment strategies since both PPL and PNM are classified as progressive disease based on the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) diagnostic criteria. On the other hand, tumor infiltrating lymphocytes (TILs) are effective when used as indicators for monitoring the immune tumor microenvironment (iTME) in the cancer host, and TILs play an important role as biomarkers in predicting prognosis and therapeutic effects. This study focused on the progression types of cancer in patients undergoing eribulin chemotherapy. In addition, the iTME in individuals with PPL and PNM was evaluated using TILs as a marker.Of the 52 patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer who underwent chemotherapy with eribulin, 40 remained in the study, and 12 patients were dropout cases. The antitumor effect was evaluated based on the RECIST criteria using version 1.1. TILs were defined as the infiltrating lymphocytes within tumor stroma and were expressed in proportion to the field investigated. In PPL cases, the high-TIL group was considered as type I and the low-TIL group was classified as type II. In PNM cases, the high-TIL group was considered as type III and the low-TIL group was classified as type IV.In 19 cases, individuals with type I progression had significantly longer progression free survival and overall survival (OS) compared to those with type III progression (p?=?0.040, p?

SUBMITTER: Kashiwagi S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5845371 | biostudies-other | 2018 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Study on the progression types of cancer in patients with breast cancer undergoing eribulin chemotherapy and tumor microenvironment.

Kashiwagi Shinichiro S Tsujio Gen G Asano Yuka Y Goto Wataru W Takada Koji K Takahashi Katsuyuki K Morisaki Tamami T Fujita Hisakazu H Takashima Tsutomu T Tomita Shuhei S Ohsawa Masahiko M Hirakawa Kosei K Ohira Masaichi M

Journal of translational medicine 20180309 1

<h4>Background</h4>Recently, the concepts of progression due to pre-existing lesions (PPL) and progression due to new metastasis (PNM) have been proposed to differentiate the progression types of treatment-resistant cancers. Previously, the differences between these two progression types did not affect the determination of treatment strategies since both PPL and PNM are classified as progressive disease based on the response evaluation criteria in solid tumors (RECIST) diagnostic criteria. On th ...[more]

PMID: 29523158

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Based on data from two multicenter, phase III clinical trials (Studies 301 and 305), eribulin (a microtubule dynamics inhibitor) is indicated in the European Union (EU) for patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after ?1 prior chemotherapy for advanced disease, including an anthracycline and a taxane in either the adjuvant or metastatic setting. Data from Studies 305 and 301 were pooled to investigate the efficacy of eribulin in various subgroups of patients who matched the EU label, including those with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative and triple-negative disease. PATIENTS AND METHODS:In Study 305 (NCT00388726), patients were randomized 2:1 to eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m(2) (equivalent to eribulin 1.23 mg/m(2) [expressed as free base]) intravenously on days 1 and 8 every 21 days] or treatment of physician's choice after 2-5 prior chemotherapies (?2 for advanced disease), including an anthracycline and a taxane (in early/advanced setting). In Study 301 (NCT00337103), patients were randomized 1:1 to eribulin (as above) or capecitabine (1.25 g/m(2) orally twice daily on days 1-14 every 21 days) following ?3 prior chemotherapies (?2 for advanced disease), including an anthracycline and a taxane. Efficacy end points were investigated in the intent-to-treat population and subgroups, pooled as discussed above. RESULTS:Overall, 1644 patients were included (eribulin: 946; control: 698); baseline characteristics were well matched. Overall survival was significantly longer with eribulin versus control (P < 0.01), as were progression-free survival and clinical benefit rate (both P < 0.05). Significant survival benefits with eribulin versus control were observed in a wide range of patient subgroups, including HER2-negative or triple-negative disease (all P < 0.05). CONCLUSION:Our findings underline the survival benefit achieved by eribulin used according to EU label in the overall MBC population and in various subgroups of interest, including patients with HER2-negative and triple-negative disease.

Project description:Background: Previous prospective studies have shown that eribulin improves the survival in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, the optimal timing of its administration to achieve the longest extended survival and the efficacy of using eribulin monotherapy as earlier-line chemotherapy are yet unclear. Methods: We identified all consecutive female patients with MBC who received any chemotherapeutic intervention for metastatic disease at our institution between July 2012 and December 2017, excluding patients with HER2-positive disease. Those who received eribulin monotherapy for MBC were classified under the eribulin cohort, whereas those who never received eribulin were included in the non-eribulin (Non-E) cohort. Among the patients in the eribulin cohort, those who received eribulin as the first- or second-line chemotherapy for MBC were further classified under the earlier-line eribulin (EE), and otherwise classified under the later-line eribulin (LE) cohorts. The survival of patients was assessed using the log-rank test. A multivariable Cox proportional hazards model was used to assess the independent efficacy and timing of eribulin monotherapy. The inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) estimate was utilized to compare the EE and LE cohorts. Results: Of the 507 patients who were initially screened, 226 were included after an intensive chart review: 93, 49, and 84 patients were included in the Non-E, EE, and LE cohorts, respectively. The eribulin cohort showed significantly longer overall survival than the Non-E cohort (30.3 vs. 22.2 months, p = 0.0217). No significant difference was observed in the progression-free survival of the EE and LE cohorts (3.4 vs. 4.4 months, p = 0.1337) after adjusting for clinically relevant factors using IPTW estimates. LE cohort showed good overall survival (OS) compared with patient group of Non-E and EE by log-rank testing (p = 0.0398), although multivariate analysis did not demonstrate eribulin administration timing as an independent prognostic factor of OS. OS was defined from the initiation of first-line chemotherapy date. Conclusions: Our data provided additional insights regarding the use of eribulin monotherapy as earlier-line chemotherapy. However, the optimal timing of eribulin monotherapy for MBC was not determined in the current study.

Dataset Information

Study on the progression types of cancer in patients with breast cancer undergoing eribulin chemotherapy and tumor microenvironment.

Publications

Study on the progression types of cancer in patients with breast cancer undergoing eribulin chemotherapy and tumor microenvironment.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets