Clinical Utility of Serum Tumor Markers and Circulating Tumor Cell Assays in the Treatment of Breast Cancer

Abramson, Vandana G.; Mayer, Ingrid A.

doi:10.1007/s11864-011-0164-2

Cited by 2 publications

(1 citation statement)

References 32 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The protocol-defined historical comparator was a 25% RR. Published single-agent capecitabine phase II studies have documented RRs of 15%-28% [27][28][29][30], and recent randomized studies using capecitabine as the control arm have similarly shown RRs with single-agent capecitabine of 14%-31% [16,18,19]. In combination with oral CPA, we observed a 36% RR overall, but note that this did not reach our goal of a 42% RR.…”

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 63%

Phase II Trial of Simple Oral Therapy with Capecitabine and Cyclophosphamide in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: SWOG S0430

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Learning Objectives: After completing this course, the reader will be able to: Compare outcomes in patients treated with capecitabine plus CPA with those of capecitabine monotherapy and combination therapy with bevacizumab, sorafenib, or ixabepilone. Identify patients for whom single‐agent capecitabine is recommended. This article is available for continuing medical education credit at http://CME.TheOncologist.com Background. Interest in oral agents for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has increased because many patients prefer oral to i.v. regimens. We evaluated a simple oral combination of capecitabine with cyclophosphamide (CPA) for MBC. Methods. The trial was designed to determine whether or not combination therapy would achieve a 42% response rate (RR) using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) in MBC. Patients with two or fewer prior chemotherapy regimens for MBC were eligible. Those with estrogen receptor–positive MBC had to have progressed on endocrine therapy. Patients had measurable disease or elevated mucin (MUC)‐1 antigen and received CPA, 100 mg daily on days 1–14, and capecitabine, 1,500 mg twice daily on days 8–21, in 21‐day cycles. Results. In 96 eligible patients, the median progression‐free survival (PFS) interval was 5.9 months (95% confidence interval [CI], 3.7–8.0 months) and median overall survival (OS) time was 18.8 months (95% CI, 13.1–22.0 months). The RR was 36% (95% CI, 26%–48%) in 80 patients with measurable disease. The MUC‐1 antigen RR was 33% (95% CI, 20%–48%), occurring in 15 of 46 patients with elevated MUC‐1 antigen. Toxicity was mild, with no treatment‐related deaths. Conclusions. PFS, OS, and RR outcomes with capecitabine plus CPA compare favorably with those of capecitabine monotherapy and combination therapy with bevacizumab, sorafenib, or ixabepilone. The addition of these other agents to capecitabine does not improve OS time in MBC patients, and this single‐arm study does not suggest that the addition of CPA to capecitabine has this potential in an unselected MBC population. When OS prolongation is the goal, clinicians should choose single‐agent capecitabine.

show abstract

Section: Discussioncontrasting

confidence: 63%

Phase II Trial of Simple Oral Therapy with Capecitabine and Cyclophosphamide in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: SWOG S0430

et al. 2012

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Animal model for mammary tumor growth in the bone microenvironment

Futakuchi

Singh

2013

Breast Cancer

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Advanced breast cancer commonly spreads to the bones, lungs, liver or brain, and bone is the most common site of breast cancer metastasis. Nearly all patients with advanced breast cancer develop bone metastasis and suffer from serious bone metastasis-associated complications, including chronic pain, fracture, spinal cord compression and hypercalcemia. Metastasis formation in the bone is a complex process that requires cooperative reciprocal interactions between tumor cells and the cellular environment of the bone, which includes osteoclasts and osteoblasts. We have developed a murine bone invasion model of breast cancer, which required a simple surgical technique and mimics the biology of the disease. Osteolytic and/or osteoblastic lesions induced in the tumor-bone interface allowed us to explore cellular and molecular interactions between malignant cells and skeletal tissue in a syngeneic setting. In this review, we will discuss a different animal model that provides a consistent and reproducible platform for investigating the molecular mechanisms underlying tumor-bone interaction and breast cancer-induced osteolytic changes.

show abstract

Clinical Utility of Serum Tumor Markers and Circulating Tumor Cell Assays in the Treatment of Breast Cancer

Cited by 2 publications

References 32 publications

Phase II Trial of Simple Oral Therapy with Capecitabine and Cyclophosphamide in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: SWOG S0430

Phase II Trial of Simple Oral Therapy with Capecitabine and Cyclophosphamide in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer: SWOG S0430

Animal model for mammary tumor growth in the bone microenvironment

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About