Is Capecitabine Efficacious in Triple Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer?

Kotsori, Aekaterini A.; Dolly, Saoirse; Sheri, Amna; Parton, Marina; Shaunak, Nisha; Ashley, S.; Walsh, Geraldine; Johnston, Stephen; Smith, Ian

doi:10.1159/000323175

Cited by 10 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The apatinib and capecitabine group exhibited a higher PFS than the capecitabine group ( P = .001). A retrospective study with 363 TNBC patients showed that capecitabine monotherapy achieved a ORR of 21% and a DCR of 33% [ 25 ] ; our study had a similar efficacy with it and the ORR in capecitabine group was 13.4%, and the DCR in capecitabine group was 31.8%. Although in apatinib and capecitabine group, it was 40.9% and 68.2%.…”

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparison of apatinib and capecitabine (Xeloda) with capecitabine (Xeloda) in advanced triple-negative breast cancer as third-line therapy

Li¹,

Zhou²,

Wang³

et al. 2018

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The treatment of advanced triple-negative breast cancer, which failed in first-line or second-line therapy, is a significant challenge. We conducted this retrospective study to explore the efficacy and safety of apatinib and capecitabine as the third-line treatment for advanced triple-negative breast cancer.This retrospective study involved 44 advanced triple-negative breast cancer patients who failed in first-line or second-line therapy in Tangshan People's Hospital from January 2016 to February 2017. Twenty-two patients received apatinib and capecitabine, while 22 patients were treated with capecitabine monotherapy as third-line therapy. The progression-free survival (PFS), objective response rate (ORR), disease control rate (DCR), and adverse events were compared between 2 groups.The apatinib and capecitabine group exhibited a higher PFS than capecitabine group (P = .001). Meanwhile, ORR and DCR in apatinib and capecitabine group were better than in capecitabine group (P = .042; .016). The 2 groups showed no significant difference in adverse events except degree I-II bleeding (P = .021). Both the apatinib and capecitabine and the capecitabine regimens revealed good tolerability.The apatinib and capecitabine regimen can achieve a better efficacy and similar serious adverse events compared with capecitabine regimen as the third-line treatment for advanced triple-negative breast cancer.

show abstract

Section: Discussionsupporting

confidence: 68%

“…[ 22 – 24 ] A retrospective study including 363 patients with TNBC treated with capecitabine demonstrated that capecitabine is a treatment option for patients with TNBC in advanced disease including first-line and second/third-line. [ 25 ]…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Comparison of apatinib and capecitabine (Xeloda) with capecitabine (Xeloda) in advanced triple-negative breast cancer as third-line therapy

Li¹,

Zhou²,

Wang³

et al. 2018

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“… 8 Capecitabine is a prodrug of 5-FU. 13 , 14 The DX regimen has been widely used as the first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Docetaxel/S-1 Versus Docetaxel/Capecitabine as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Breast Cancer

You

Wen

et al. 2015

Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The treatment efficacy of advanced breast cancer is still not promising. This study aimed to compare the efficacy and safety of docetaxel/S-1 (DS1) versus docetaxel/capecitabine (DX) as the first-line treatment for advanced breast cancer.From June 2008 to June 2013, 22 patients with advanced breast cancer were treated with the DS1 regimen. Another 26 age- and disease status-matched patients treated with the DX regimen served as controls. The 2 groups were compared in terms of time to progression (TTP), objective response rate, disease control rate, clinical benefit rate, and safety profiles.Median TTP did not differ significantly between the DS1 group and the DX group (9.04 vs 10.94 months, P = 0.473). There were no significant differences in objective response rate, disease control rate, and clinical benefit rate between the 2 groups. Both the DS1 and the DX regimens showed good tolerability. The 2 regimens showed no significant difference in adverse events except degree III hand-foot syndrome (DS1 0 vs DX 23.1%, P = 0.025).For the first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer, the DS1 and the DX regimens showed similar efficacy and safety. The DS1 regimen had less severe hand-foot syndrome than the DX regimen.

show abstract

“…Kotsori et al [23] retrospectively analyzed 89 TNBC patients who received capecitabine monotherapy as first- to third-line therapy in Royal Marsden hospital. The ORR and CBR were 21 and 33%, respectively.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Acceptable but Limited Efficacy of Capecitabine-Based Doublets in the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Pilot Study

Liao

Fan²,

Wan³

et al. 2013

Chemotherapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: This open-label, nonrandomized phase II clinical trial investigated the efficacy of capecitabine-based doublets in the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). Methods: Eligible mTNBC women with measurable diseases were recruited to receive either TX regimen (docetaxel 75 mg/m² i.v. on day 1 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² b.i.d. on days 1-14 every 3 weeks) or NX regimen (vinorelbine 25 mg/m² i.v. on days 1 and 8 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m² b.i.d. on days 1-14 every 3 weeks) for up to 6 cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) and secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and clinical benefit rate (CBR). Results: Forty-five mTNBC patients, 27 in TX and 18 in NX were recruited. The total ORR was 20.0% and CBR was 40%. After a median follow-up of 28 months, PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.1-6.3 months) and OS was 18.2 months (95% CI, 8.7-27.7 months). The response rate was numerically but not statistically lower in the TX group than in the NX group (27.8 vs. 14.8%, p = 0.449). No difference was found in either PFS (4.9 vs. 5.2 months, p = 0.483) or OS (21.5 vs. 18.3 months, p = 0.964) between the two regimens. Conclusions: Although the OS seems to be reasonable, the efficacy of capecitabine-containing TX or NX regimen was limited in terms of response and PFS in mTNBC patients, suggesting capecitabine-based doublet may be acceptable but has limited potency in this subtype.

show abstract

Is Capecitabine Efficacious in Triple Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer?

Cited by 10 publications

References 52 publications

Comparison of apatinib and capecitabine (Xeloda) with capecitabine (Xeloda) in advanced triple-negative breast cancer as third-line therapy

Comparison of apatinib and capecitabine (Xeloda) with capecitabine (Xeloda) in advanced triple-negative breast cancer as third-line therapy

Docetaxel/S-1 Versus Docetaxel/Capecitabine as First-Line Treatment for Advanced Breast Cancer

Acceptable but Limited Efficacy of Capecitabine-Based Doublets in the First-Line Treatment of Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Pilot Study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About