Randomized Open Label Phase III Trial of Irinotecan Plus Capecitabine versus Capecitabine Monotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated with Anthracycline and Taxane: PROCEED Trial (KCSG BR 11-01)

In Hae Park; Seock-Ah Im; Kyung Hae Jung; Joo Hyuk Sohn; Yeon Hee Park; Keun Seok Lee; Sung Hoon Sim; Kyong-Hwa Park; Jee Hyun Kim; Byung Ho Nam; Hee-Jun Kim; Tae-Yong Kim; Kyung-Hun Lee; Sung-Bae Kim; Jin-Hee Ahn; Suee Lee; Jungsil Ro

doi:10.4143/crt.2017.562

Articles

Page Path: HOME > Cancer Res Treat > Volume 51(1); 2019 > Article

Original Article Randomized Open Label Phase III Trial of Irinotecan Plus Capecitabine versus Capecitabine Monotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated with Anthracycline and Taxane: PROCEED Trial (KCSG BR 11-01): In Hae Park, MD¹, Seock-Ah Im, MD², Kyung Hae Jung, MD³, Joo Hyuk Sohn, MD⁴, Yeon Hee Park, MD⁵, Keun Seok Lee, MD¹, Sung Hoon Sim, MD¹, Kyong-Hwa Park, MD⁶, Jee Hyun Kim, MD⁷, Byung Ho Nam, PhD^8,a, Hee-Jun Kim, MD⁹, Tae-Yong Kim, MD², Kyung-Hun Lee, MD², Sung-Bae Kim, MD³, Jin-Hee Ahn, MD³, Suee Lee, MD¹⁰, Jungsil Ro, MD^1,; Cancer Research and Treatment : Official Journal of Korean Cancer Association 2019;51(1):43-52.
DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2017.562
Published online: February 14, 2018

¹Division of Internal Medicine, Center for Breast Cancer, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

²Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

³Department of Oncology, Asan Medical Center, Ulsan University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁴Department of Oncology, Severance Hospital, Yonsei University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁵Division of Hematology-Oncology, Department of Medicine, Samsung Medical Center, Sungkyunkwan University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁶Division of Oncology/Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Korea University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

⁷Division of Oncology/Hematology, Department of Internal Medicine, Seoul National University Bundang Hospital, Seongnam, Korea

⁸Center for Clinical Trials, National Cancer Center, Goyang, Korea

⁹Department of Internal Medicine, Chung-Ang University College of Medicine, Seoul, Korea

¹⁰Department of Internal Medicine, Dong-A University College of Medicine, Busan, Korea

Correspondence: Jungsil Ro, MD Department of Cancer Biomedical Science, National Cancer Center Graduated School of Cancer Science and Policy, National Cancer Center, 323 Ilsan-ro, Ilsandong-gu, Goyang 10408, Korea
Tel: 82-31-920-1680 Fax: 82-31-920-0858 E-mail: jungsro@ncc.re.kr

aPresent address: The Institute of Advanced Clinical & Biomedical Research, Herings, Seoul, Korea

• Received: November 27, 2017 • Accepted: February 12, 2018

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) which permits unrestricted non-commercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

10,807 Views
453 Download
38 Web of Science
42 Crossref
40 Scopus

prev next

Full Article

Download PDF

Abstract

Purpose
We investigated whether irinotecan plus capecitabine improved progression-free survival (PFS) compared with capecitabine alone in patients with human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2) negative and anthracycline and taxane pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC).
Materials and Methods
A total of 221 patients were randomly assigned to irinotecan (80 mg/m², days 1 and 8) and capecitabine (1,000 mg/m² twice a day, days 1-14) or capecitabine alone (1,250 mg/m² twice a day, days 1-14) every 3 weeks. The primary endpoint was PFS.
Results
There was no significant difference in PFS between the combination and monotherapy arm (median, 6.4 months vs. 4.7 months; hazard ratio [HR], 0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.63 to 1.11; p=0.84). In patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC, n=90), the combination significantly improved PFS (median, 4.7 months vs. 2.5 months; HR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.91; p=0.02). Objective response rate was numerically higher in the combination arm, though it failed to reach statistical significance (44.4% vs. 33.3%, p=0.30). Overall survival did not differ between arms (median, 20.4 months vs. 24.0 months; p=0.63). While grade 3 or 4 neutropenia was more common in the combination arm (39.6% vs. 9.0%), hand-foot syndrome was more often observed in capecitabine arm. Quality of life measurements in global health status was similar. However, patients in the combination arm showed significantly worse symptom scales especially in nausea/vomiting and diarrhea.
Conclusion
Irinotecan plus capecitabine did not prove clinically superior to single-agent capecitabine in anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated HER2 negative MBC patients. Toxicity profiles of the two groups differed but were manageable. The role of added irinotecan in patients with TNBC remains to be elucidated.
Key words: Metastatic breast cancer, Irinotecan, Capecitabine, Clinical trial, Progression free survival

Introduction

Despite substantial progress in patient management over the past few decades, metastatic breast cancer (MBC) is still considered incurable. To date, the mainstay of treatment for MBC is cytotoxic chemotherapy which has been proved to prolong survival and improve quality of life (QoL) in patients with MBC [1]. Nevertheless, there are few alternatives if patients show resistance to anthracycline- or taxanebased regimens. Therefore, new treatment options are urgently needed, particularly for patients with heavily pretreated refractory disease.

Irinotecan is a topoisomerase I (Top1) inhibitory pro-drug that is enzymatically converted to the active metabolite SN-38 [2]. It preserves single-strand DNA breaks and binds to Top1-DNA complexes during DNA replication and transcription resulting in double-stranded DNA breaks and eventual cell death [3]. Irinotecan has been used in conjunction with other chemotherapeutic agents to treat colorectal, lung, and gastric cancers [4,5]. Specifically, irinotecan combined with capecitabine or 5-fluorouracil has been widely accepted as the first line therapy in metastatic colorectal cancer, given its synergistic effects [4,6]. In breast cancer, its antitumor activity has been assessed either in single-agent use or in combination with other therapeutics. As monotherapy, objective response rates (ORRs) have ranged from 14%-23%, and median response duration was reported around 4.5 months in patients with heavily pretreated MBC [7]. Meanwhile, irinotecan when added to docetaxel, gemcitabine, or cisplatin showed response rates of 31%-64% and median time-to-progression of 6.7-8 months in patients with MBC [8,9]. We previously conducted a phase II single-arm study investigating the feasibility of using irinotecan plus capecitabine (IX) in patients with anthracycline- and taxanepretreated MBC. As a result, ORR was 58.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 42.2 to 72.9), and median progressionfree survival (PFS) was 7.6 months (95% CI, 5.0 to 10.2) [10]. Toxicities of this combination were manageable and tolerable: neutropenia ≥ grade 3, 58.4%; febrile neutropenia 5.6%; and grade 3 diarrhea, 2.8%. Based on these promising results, a randomized, multicenter, and open-label phase III clinical trial was conducted to determine whether irinotecan plus capecitabine was superior to capecitabine alone in terms of PFS for patients with anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated MBC.

Materials and Methods

1. Study design and patients

This open-label, multicenter, randomized phase III study (PROCEED; Randomized Phase III trial of irinotecan plus capecitabine versus capecitabine monotherapy in patients with MBC previously treated with anthracycline and taxane) was conducted at 10 sites in South Korea. Eligible patients were ≥ 20 years old, with Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group (ECOG) performance status scores of 0 or 1 and human epidermal growth factor 2 (HER2)–negative MBC. All participants had previously received anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapies and no more than two previous cytotoxic regimens for their metastatic disease. Patients who experienced disease recurrence within 1 year after completion of neo/adjuvant anthracycline- and taxane-based chemotherapy were also eligible without any treatment for their metastatic disease. Other inclusion criteria were as follows: (1) resolution of treatment-related toxicities to ≤ grade 1, according to National Cancer Institute Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (NCI-CTCAE) ver. 3.0; (2) adequate organ function; and (3) negative serum pregnancy test. The main exclusion criteria were symptomatic brain metastasis, uncontrolled infection, or serious medical problems such as heart failure, uncontrolled diabetes, or gastrointestinal problems with absorption.

Patients were evenly randomized to either the irinotecan/capecitabine combination (IX) or the single-agent capecitabine (X) study arm. Randomization was stratified by hormone receptor status and presence of visceral metastasis. The primary study endpoint was PFS in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population, with secondary endpoints of ORR, overall survival (OS), and safety.

2. Study treatment and assessment

Irinotecan was administered intravenously at a dose of 80 mg/m² over 90 minutes on days 1 and 8, and capecitabine was given per oral as 1,000 mg/m² dose twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks. In the single-agent capecitabine arm, the dosage was 1,250 mg/m² twice daily on days 1-14 every 3 weeks. To lessen irinotecan-induced toxicities, we concomitantly administered urodeoxycholinic acid (200 mg three times), sodium bicarbonate (1,000 mg twice), and magnesium oxide (300 mg) for 3 days. Loperamide was used to manage delayed diarrhea. Dose modifications were performed for patients with toxicities with the same manner as that utilized in the previous phase II clinical trial [10]. Capecitabine interruptions or adjustments to manage toxicities were permitted at the physician’s discretion. Treatment was continued until disease progression, unacceptable toxicities, or patient request for discontinuation.

To assess tumors, the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors (RECIST) ver. 1.1 was applied at screening and every 6 weeks after treatment initiation. Adverse events (AEs) were evaluated and recorded at baseline and throughout treatment using the NCI-CTCAE ver. 3.0. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer (EORTC) Quality of Life Core Questionnaire (QLQ-C30) was also administered to each patient at baseline and after every two cycles of chemotherapy [11]. For this study, we used the Korean version of QLQ-C30 which has been validated [12].

3. Statistical analysis

Prior data had provided a median PFS value for the control arm of capecitabine monotherapy (X), which was 4.0 months in a similar patient population [13,14]; and we anticipated a median PFS of 6.0 months for combined irinotecan/capecitabine treatment (IX). Patients would be randomized to each group at a 1:1 ratio, necessitating a total enrollment of 200 patients for a power of 80%. The type I error probability associated with testing this null hypothesis was 0.05. Assuming a withdrawal rate of 10%, a total patient accrual of 222 was warranted.

All patients participating in randomization were included in the ITT population, which served for all survival analysis. Safety was assessed in those receiving at least one dose of a study treatment regimen, and ORR was evaluated in patients with measurable disease. PFS and OS estimates were generated by Kaplan-Meier method and compared via log-rank test. The Cox proportional hazards analysis was applied to weigh outcomes of the experimental treatment against those of the control arm, examining variables that might impact treatment response. ORR was calculated as the proportion of patients with complete or partial tumor responses.

The QLQ-C30 data were linearly transformed to yield scores from 0 to 100, according to the EORTC scoring manual [11]. The mean change in QoL score from baseline was calculated separately, and analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures was used for between-group comparison of mean change in QoL score. All tests were 2-sided, and we considered p-value of < 0.05 as statistically significant. All statistics were calculated using SPSS ver. 21.0 software (IBM Corp., Armonk, NY).

4. Ethical statement

This trial complied fully with guidelines for Good Clinical Practice and the Declaration of Helsinki. Written informed consent was obtained from each patient. Approval of the protocol and of any amendments was obtained from an independent ethics committee for each site. This study was registered with ClinicalTrials.gov (number NCT01501669).

Results

1. Baseline characteristics and study treatment

Between March 2011 and May 2016, 233 patients were enrolled. Of these, 114 patients were randomized to arm IX and 107 to arm X (Fig. 1). Three patients in arm IX and seven patients in arm X withdrew consent before proceeding to treatment. Consequently, 211 patients received at least one dose of assigned treatment and they were included in safety analysis. There were no statistically significant differences between groups in terms of age, performance status, and visceral metastasis. In arms IX and X, 54.4% and 64.5% of patients, had hormonal receptor positive disease. Two-thirds of the patients received prior chemotherapy in the (neo) adjuvant setting. The number of patients given more than one line of chemotherapy for metastatic disease was 40 (35.1%) in arm IX and 46 (43.0%) in arm X (Table 1). Around 10% of patients received study regimens as the first-line therapy for MBC.

2. Efficacy

During a median follow-up period of 22.8 months (95% CI, 18.8 to 26.8), a total of 118 deaths had occurred, 62 (54.4%) in arm IX and 56 (52.3%) in arm X. The two arms showed no significant difference in median PFS (arm IX: 6.4 months; 95% CI, 4.7 to 8.1 and arm X: 4.7 months; 95% CI, 3.7 to 5.7; p=0.21) (Fig. 2A). Median OS in the two arms were also similar (IX: 20.4 months; 95% CI, 16.6 to 24.2 and X: 24.0 months; 95% CI, 17.1 to 30.9; p=0.63) (Fig. 2B). Those patients (n=183) presenting with measurable disease at baseline were accessed for response analysis (Table 2). Objective responses were observed in 44 patients (44.4%) of arm IX and 28 patients (33.3%) of arm X arm, without significant difference (p=0.30) (Table 2).

In subgroup analysis, combination (IX) treatment showed significant improvement in PFS for patients with the triplenegative breast cancer (TNBC) subtype (hazard ratio [HR], 0.58; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.91; p=0.02) (Fig. 3). Median PFS of the TNBC subgroup in arm IX was 4.7 months (95% CI, 3.5 to 5.9), compared with 2.5 months (95% CI, 1.2 to 3.8) in arm X (p=0.01) (Fig. 4A). However, such increase in PFS did not lead to the prolongation of OS in this subgroup (median OS, 18.0 months; 95% CI, 13.0 to 23.0 vs. 13.2 months; 95% CI, 6.7 to 19.7; p=0.36) (Fig. 4B).

3. Safety and QoL data

Patients who received at least one dose of study treatment were included in safety and QoL analysis. More patients in arm IX required dose reductions or interruptions (Table 3). The most common reasons for dose reduction or interruption in IX arm were hematologic toxicities (85.2%, 71.1%) and hand-foot syndrome (50.0%, 28.0%) in X arm. Permanent therapeutic discontinuation was rare: one patient in arm IX arm (arrhythmia) and three patients in arm X (n=1, infection; n=2, hematologic toxicities). In arm IX, the more common AEs included hematologic toxicities and diarrhea (Table 4). In particular, most of neutropenia and anemia occurred in IX arm were more than grade 2 which required dose modification of study drugs. Although neutropenia was the most common AE, the frequency of neutropenic fever was quite low in IX arm (n=1, 2.6%). On the other hand, hand-foot syndrome of any grade was more often manifested in arm X (53.0% vs. 31.5%). None of the AEs in either treatment arm resulted in death.

QoL assessments were conducted at baseline and after every two cycles after randomization. However, data obtained after cycle 11 could not be reliably evaluated, with < 10% of patients remaining in the study beyond this time point. Significant differences in favor of arm X were noted for diarrhea and nausea/vomiting symptom scales (p < 0.05). The differences observed between treatment arms in other functional scales and in the global health scale were not significant (Fig. 5A and B).

Discussion

In general, combination therapy for MBC showed prolonged PFS with higher response rate compared to monotherapy, though such beneficial effects did not result in improved OS [15-18]. In this phase III study, the addition of irinotecan to capecitabine (IX) did not show the superior clinical efficacies to capecitabine monotherapy (X) in patients with MBC previously exposed to anthracycline and taxane based treatment. The study was designed based on the assumption that combination treatment (IX) would prolong PFS 2.0 months beyond the 4.0-month PFS of monotherapy (X). In our results, the PFS of arm IX was 6.4 months (95% CI, 4.7 to 8.1), and that of arm X was 4.7 months (95% CI, 3.7 to 5.7). For overall response rate, IX showed numerically higher response rate, however it did not reach statistical significance (44.4% vs. 33.3%, p=0.30). There are several possible explanations for the failure of this study. First, the number of patients with estrogen receptor– or progesterone receptor–positive disease in arm X arm was higher (64.5% vs. 54.4%, p=0.13), though it was not statistically significant. Such imbalance between two groups may have had caused the better PFS of arm X than expected. Second, the dose reductions and interruptions due to more frequent and severe hematologic toxicities of the combination treatment may have made it difficult to maintain adequate dose intensities of both irinotecan and capecitabine in this group.

Even though it was a subgroup analysis, results of the TNBC subgroup were intriguing. There have been few data regarding the benefits of combination therapy according to hormone receptor status. Similarly to our study, another phase III trial comparing ixabepilone plus capecitabine with single-agent capecitabine has demonstrated the superiority of combination treatment in a TNBC patient subgroup (HR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.48 to 0.84) [18], whereas patients with hormone receptor–positive disease did not receive benefits from combination therapy (HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.80 to 1.14). Considering the more potent cytotoxic effects of combination therapy, it may be more reasonable to target hormone receptor negative-disease, which progresses rapidly with early drug resistance. Additionally, there was a tendency for OS improvement with irinotecan combination treatment in TNBC subgroup in this study, which was not adequately powered.

There were some concerns regarding safety of IX combination. Although most of the toxicities were manageable, neutropenia was the most pronounced toxicity that was responsible for frequent dose interruptions and delays. In addition, gastrointestinal symptoms such as diarrhea, nausea, and vomiting had significantly worse effects on QoL. In an earlier study, Perez et al. [7] has shown that weekly irinotecan is more tolerable and effective than every 3 weeks treatment. Although we did administer irinotecan on a weekly basis, the degree of toxicity seemed to be worse as combined with capecitabine.

Recently, the result of phase III clinical trial (BEACON) which compared oral irinotecan agent, etirinotecan pegol with treatment of physician’s choice in patients with HER2 negative MBC was reported [19]. Etirinotecan pegol is designed to improve tissue distribution and reduce the toxicities of SN38, the active metabolite of irinotecan [20]. The toxicity profile of etirinotecan pegol was comparable to that of control arm, despite worse gastrointestinal symptoms (≥ grade 3 diarrhea 10% vs. 1%) [19,21]. Although the study did not demonstrate an improvement in OS for etirinotecan pegol arm compared to control arm, subgroup analysis showed prolonged survival in patients with liver or brain metastasis, more aggressive disease [22]. Irinotecan may have promise for more challenging diseases such as TNBC or those with visceral metastasis, as inferred from BEACON trial and our study.

In summary, irinotecan and capecitabine combination did not prove clinically superior to capecitabine alone as treatment of HER2-negative anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated MBC. Even though more AEs were found in combination treatment arm, most cases were tolerable and manageable. In view of the unmet need for effective drugs in highly refractory disease, irinotecan based chemotherapy could offer some benefits to patients with TNBC based on our subgroup analysis. Further clinical studies will be needed for irinotecan based treatment for this subgroup of patients. In addition, the reasonable approach to mitigate irinotecan toxicities should be planned as part of proactive supportive care.

NOTES

This study was partly funded by Shin Poong Pharmaceuticals Co.

Acknowledgements

We thank the patients, their families, and all investigators who participated in the study. We also thank the Shin Poong pharmaceuticals Co. for providing Irinotecan.

This study was supported by NCC Grant No 1210530.

Fig. 1.

Study flowchart. ITT, intention-to-treat.

Fig. 2.

Survival analysis in the intention-to-treat population. Kaplan-Meier curve for progression-free survival (PFS) (A) and overall survival (OS) (B) between irinotecan and capecitabine combination (IX) and capecitabine alone (X). mPFS, median PFS; mOS, median OS; CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 3.

The forest plots of progression-free survival in subgroups stratified by clinical factors. IX, irinotecan and capecitabine combination; X, capecitabine; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; TNBC, triple negative breast cancer.

Fig. 4.

Survival analysis in the triple negative breast cancer subgroup. Kaplan-Meier curve for progression-free survival (PFS) (A) and overall survival (OS) (B) between irinotecan and capecitabine combination (IX) and capecitabine alone (X). mPFS, median PFS; mOS, median OS; CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 5.

Quality of life measurement. (A) The difference between baseline and each time point in global health and functional subscales. Positive values meant improved state compared with baseline. (B) The change in symptom subscales from baseline. In contrast to functional subscales, negative values meant improved state. IX, irinotecan and capecitabine combination; X, capecitabine. *p > 0.05.

Table 1.

The baseline patient characteristics

Characteristic	IX (n=114)	X (n=107)	p-value
Age, median (range, yr)	50 (29-73)	49 (30-80)	0.64
ECOG PS
0	26 (22.8)	24 (22.4)	0.82
1	87 (76.3)	81 (75.7)
2	1 (0.9)	2 (1.9)
Menopausal status
Pre-menopause	30 (26.3)	32 (29.9)	0.65
Post-menopause	84 (73.7)	75 (70.1)
ER/PgR
Positive	62 (54.4)	69 (64.5)	0.13
Negative	52 (45.6)	38 (35.5)
(Neo)Adjuvant chemotherapy	89 (78.1)	77 (72.0)	0.35
Adjuvant endocrine	48 (42.1)	43 (40.2)	0.79
Visceral metastasis
Yes	66 (57.9)	63 (58.9)	0.89
No	48 (42.1)	44 (41.1)
Previous palliative endocrine therapy
Yes	38 (33.3)	44 (41.1)	0.23
No	76 (66.7)	63 (58.9)
No. of previous chemotherapies
0	13 (11.4)	13 (12.1)	0.27
1	61 (53.5)	48 (44.9)
≥ 2	40 (35.1)	46 (43.0)

Values are presented as number (%). IX, irinotecan and capecitabine combination; X, capecitabine alone; ECOG PS, Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group Performance Score; ER, estrogen receptor; PgR, progesterone receptor.

Table 2.

Tumor responses for patients with measurable disease

	IX (n=99)	X (n=84)	p-value
CR	4 (4.0)	1 (1.2)
PR	40 (40.4)	27 (32.1)
SD	30 (30.3)	26 (31.0)
PD	16 (16.2)	22 (26.2)
Not known	9 (9.1)	8 (9.5)
ORR	44 (44.4)	28 (33.3)	0.30

Values are presented as number (%). IX, irinotecan and capecitabine combination; X, capecitabine alone; CR, complete response; PR, partial response; SD, stable disease; PD, progressive disease; ORR, objective response rate (CR+PR).

Table 3.

Dose modification of study drugs according to AEs

	IX (n=111)	X (n=100)
Dose reduction	61 (54.9)	34 (34.0)
Hematologic AE	52 (85.2)	9 (26.5)
Hand-foot syndrome	12 (23.1)	17 (50.0)
Diarrhea	4 (6.6)	0
Dose interruption	38 (34.2)	25 (25.0)
Hematologic AE	27 (71.1)	14 (56.0)
Hand-foot syndrome	5 (13.2)	7 (28.0)
Neutropenic fever	1 (2.6)	1 (4.0)
Diarrhea	1 (2.6)	1 (4.0)
Treatment discontinuation	1 (0.9)	3 (3.0)
	1 (arrhythmia)	1 (infection), 2 (hematologic AE)

Values are presented as number (%). AE, adverse events; IX, irinotecan and capecitabine combination; X, capecitabine alone.

Table 4.

Treatment related adverse events in both arms

	IX (n=111)		X (n=100)		p-value
	Grade 1-2	Grade 3-4	Grade 1-2	Grade 3-4	p-value
Hematologic AE
Neutropenia	26 (23.4)	44 (39.6)	7 (7.0)	9 (9.0)	< 0.001
Anemia	3 (2.7)	16 (14.4)	10 (10.0)	1 (1.0)	< 0.001
Thrombocytopenia	7 (6.3)	0	4 (4.0)	0	0.45
Non-hematologic AE
Hand-foot syndrome	33 (29.7)	2 (1.8)	49 (49.0)	4 (4.0)	0.007
Diarrhea	46 (41.4)	3 (2.7)	29 (29.0)	1 (1.0)	0.012
Nausea/Vomiting	61 (54.9)	0	36 (36.0)	2 (2.0)	0.03
Liver function abnormality	2 (1.8)	0	7 (7.0)	1 (1.0)	0.098
Paronychia	2 (1.8)	0	4 (4.0)	1 (1.0)	0.36
Edema	9 (8.1)	0	5 (5.0)	0	0.37
Asthenia	3 (2.7)	0	5 (5.0)	0	0.38
Insomnia	15 (13.5)	0	7 (7.0)	0	0.12

Values are presented as number (%). IX, irinotecan plus capecitabine arm; X, capecitabine alone arm; AE, adverse events.

REFERENCES

1. Cardoso F, Costa A, Norton L, Senkus E, Aapro M, Andre F, et al. ESO-ESMO 2nd international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC2)dagger. Ann Oncol. 2014;25:1871–88. Article PubMed PMC PDF
2. Wang JC. Cellular roles of DNA topoisomerases: a molecular perspective. Nat Rev Mol Cell Biol. 2002;3:430–40. Article PubMed PDF
3. Pizzolato JF, Saltz LB. The camptothecins. Lancet. 2003;361:2235–42. Article PubMed
4. Ichikawa W, Takahashi T, Suto K, Yamashita T, Nihei Z, Shirota Y, et al. Thymidylate synthase predictive power is overcome by irinotecan combination therapy with S-1 for gastric cancer. Br J Cancer. 2004;91:1245–50. Article PubMed PMC PDF
5. Guo Y, Shi M, Shen X, Yang C, Yang L, Zhang J. Capecitabine plus irinotecan versus 5-FU/leucovorin plus irinotecan in the treatment of colorectal cancer: a meta-analysis. Clin Colorectal Cancer. 2014;13:110–8. Article PubMed
6. O'Connor T, Rustum Y, Levine E, Creaven P. A phase I study of capecitabine and a modulatory dose of irinotecan in metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2008;61:125–31. Article PubMed
7. Perez EA, Hillman DW, Mailliard JA, Ingle JN, Ryan JM, Fitch TR, et al. Randomized phase II study of two irinotecan schedules for patients with metastatic breast cancer refractory to an anthracycline, a taxane, or both. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:2849–55. Article PubMed
8. Tan WW, Hillman DW, Salim M, Northfelt DW, Anderson DM, Stella PJ, et al. N0332 phase 2 trial of weekly irinotecan hydrochloride and docetaxel in refractory metastatic breast cancer: a North Central Cancer Treatment Group (NCCTG) Trial. Ann Oncol. 2010;21:493–7. Article PubMed PDF
9. Stathopoulos GP, Tsavdaridis D, Malamos NA, Rigatos SK, Kosmas C, Pergantas N, et al. Irinotecan combined with docetaxel in pre-treated metastatic breast cancer patients: a phase II study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2005;56:487–91. Article PubMed
10. Lee KS, Park IH, Nam BH, Ro J. Phase II study of irinotecan plus capecitabine in anthracycline- and taxane- pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer. Invest New Drugs. 2013;31:152–9. Article PubMed
11. Aaronson NK, Ahmedzai S, Bergman B, Bullinger M, Cull A, Duez NJ, et al. The European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer QLQ-C30: a quality-of-life instrument for use in international clinical trials in oncology. J Natl Cancer Inst. 1993;85:365–76. Article PubMed PDF
12. Yun YH, Park YS, Lee ES, Bang SM, Heo DS, Park SY, et al. Validation of the Korean version of the EORTC QLQ-C30. Qual Life Res. 2004;13:863–8. Article PubMed
13. Jassem J, Carroll C, Ward SE, Simpson E, Hind D. The clinical efficacy of cytotoxic agents in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer patients pretreated with an anthracycline and a taxane: a systematic review. Eur J Cancer. 2009;45:2749–58. Article PubMed
14. Gelmon K, Chan A, Harbeck N. The role of capecitabine in first-line treatment for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Oncologist. 2006;11 Suppl 1:42–51. Article PubMed
15. Belfiglio M, Fanizza C, Tinari N, Ficorella C, Iacobelli S, Natoli C, et al. Meta-analysis of phase III trials of docetaxel alone or in combination with chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer. J Cancer Res Clin Oncol. 2012;138:221–9. Article PubMed
16. O'Shaughnessy J, Miles D, Vukelja S, Moiseyenko V, Ayoub JP, Cervantes G, et al. Superior survival with capecitabine plus docetaxel combination therapy in anthracycline-pretreated patients with advanced breast cancer: phase III trial results. J Clin Oncol. 2002;20:2812–23. Article PubMed
17. Albain KS, Nag SM, Calderillo-Ruiz G, Jordaan JP, Llombart AC, Pluzanska A, et al. Gemcitabine plus Paclitaxel versus Paclitaxel monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer and prior anthracycline treatment. J Clin Oncol. 2008;26:3950–7. Article PubMed
18. Sparano JA, Vrdoljak E, Rixe O, Xu B, Manikhas A, Medina C, et al. Randomized phase III trial of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28:3256–63. Article PubMed PMC
19. Perez EA, Awada A, O'Shaughnessy J, Rugo HS, Twelves C, Im SA, et al. Etirinotecan pegol (NKTR-102) versus treatment of physician's choice in women with advanced breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine (BEACON): a randomised, open-label, multicentre, phase 3 trial. Lancet Oncol. 2015;16:1556–68. Article PubMed
20. Hoch U, Staschen CM, Johnson RK, Eldon MA. Nonclinical pharmacokinetics and activity of etirinotecan pegol (NKTR-102), a long-acting topoisomerase 1 inhibitor, in multiple cancer models. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2014;74:1125–37. Article PubMed PMC
21. Twelves C, Cortes J, O'Shaughnessy J, Awada A, Perez EA, Im SA, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer treated with etirinotecan pegol versus treatment of physician's choice: results from the randomised phase III BEACON trial. Eur J Cancer. 2017;76:205–15. Article PubMed
22. Cortes J, Rugo HS, Awada A, Twelves C, Perez EA, Im SA, et al. Prolonged survival in patients with breast cancer and a history of brain metastases: results of a preplanned subgroup analysis from the randomized phase III BEACON trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;165:329–41. Article PubMed PMC PDF

Figure & Data

REFERENCES

Citations

Citations to this article as recorded by

The Survival and Financial Benefit of Investigator-Initiated Trials Conducted by Korean Cancer Study Group
Bum Jun Kim, Chi Hoon Maeng, Bhumsuk Keam, Young-Hyuck Im, Jungsil Ro, Kyung Hae Jung, Seock-Ah Im, Tae Won Kim, Jae Lyun Lee, Dae Seog Heo, Sang-We Kim, Keunchil Park, Myung-Ju Ahn, Byoung Chul Cho, Hoon-Kyo Kim, Yoon-Koo Kang, Jae Yong Cho, Hwan Jung Yu
Cancer Research and Treatment.2025; 57(1): 39. CrossRef
Second-Line Treatment Options for Patients with Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer: A Review of the Clinical Evidence
José Ángel García-Saenz, Álvaro Rodríguez-Lescure, Josefina Cruz, Joan Albanell, Emilio Alba, Antonio Llombart
Targeted Oncology.2025;[Epub] CrossRef
Targeting EMSY-mediated methionine metabolism is a potential therapeutic strategy for triple-negative breast cancer
Cui-Cui Liu, Lie Chen, Yu-Wen Cai, Yu-Fei Chen, Yi-Ming Liu, Yu-Jie Zhou, Zhi-Ming Shao, Ke-Da Yu
Cell Reports Medicine.2024; 5(2): 101396. CrossRef
Efficacy and safety of nanoparticle albumin‐bound paclitaxel in taxane‐pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients
Weili Xiong, Ting Xu, Xiao Liu, Lili Zhang, Yuan Yuan
Cancer.2024; 130(S8): 1488. CrossRef
Eribulin plus carboplatin combination for HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: a multicenter, real-world cohort study
Mengqian Ni, Lijia Zhou, Yongkui Lu, Dachuan Guo, Xiuyue Li, Lixia Li, Lidong Zhang, Meiting Chen, Lulu Zhang, Fei Xu, Zhongyu Yuan, Shusen Wang, Yanxia Shi, Anli Yang, Xin An
BMC Cancer.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Subgroup analyses from the phase 3 ASCENT study of sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer
Sara A. Hurvitz, Aditya Bardia, Kevin Punie, Kevin Kalinsky, Lisa A. Carey, Hope S. Rugo, Véronique Diéras, See Phan, Rosemary Delaney, Yanni Zhu, Sara M. Tolaney
npj Breast Cancer.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
A Dual Bispecific Hydrolysis Peptide‐Drug Conjugate Responsive to Micro‐Acidic and Reduction Circumstance Promotes Antitumor Efficacy in Triple‐Negative Breast Cancer
Tingting Tang, Naiyu Liu, Lingjuan Wang, Kaiyue Zuo, Xinjie Zhu
ChemBioChem.2024;[Epub] CrossRef
Synergizing Immunotherapy and Antibody–Drug Conjugates: New Horizons in Breast Cancer Therapy
Antonello Pinto, Chiara Guarini, Marianna Giampaglia, Valeria Sanna, Assunta Melaccio, Laura Lanotte, Anna Natalizia Santoro, Francesca Pini, Antonio Cusmai, Francesco Giuliani, Gennaro Gadaleta-Caldarola, Palma Fedele
Pharmaceutics.2024; 16(9): 1146. CrossRef
Preliminary results from ASCENT-J02: a phase 1/2 study of sacituzumab govitecan in Japanese patients with advanced solid tumors
Yoichi Naito, Seigo Nakamura, Nobuko Kawaguchi-Sakita, Takanori Ishida, Takahiro Nakayama, Yutaka Yamamoto, Norikazu Masuda, Koji Matsumoto, Takahiro Kogawa, Kazuki Sudo, Akihiko Shimomura, Catherine Lai, Danjie Zhang, Yuki Iwahori, Dianna Gary, Danh Huyn
International Journal of Clinical Oncology.2024; 29(11): 1684. CrossRef
A Phase IIb, single arm, multicenter trial of sacituzumab govitecan in Chinese patients with metastatic triple‐negative breast cancer who received at least two prior treatments
Binghe Xu, Fei Ma, Tao Wang, Shusen Wang, Zhongsheng Tong, Wei Li, Xinhong Wu, Xiaojia Wang, Tao Sun, Yueyin Pan, Herui Yao, Xian Wang, Ting Luo, Jin Yang, Xiaohua Zeng, Weihong Zhao, Xiuyu Julie Cong, Jiongjie Chen
International Journal of Cancer.2023; 152(10): 2134. CrossRef
Update on Classic and Novel Approaches in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer Treatment: A Comprehensive Review
Salvatore Greco, Nicolò Fabbri, Riccardo Spaggiari, Alfredo De Giorgi, Fabio Fabbian, Antonio Giovine
Biomedicines.2023; 11(6): 1772. CrossRef
Cost-effectiveness of sacituzumab govitecan versus chemotherapy in patients with relapsed or refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer
Jiao Xie, SiNi Li, YaMin Li, JianHe Li
BMC Health Services Research.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Triple negative breast cancer: second and successive lines of treatment
Fernando Henao Carrasco, Sara Leal Sánchez
Revisiones en Cáncer.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
TROPION-Breast02: Datopotamab deruxtecan for locally recurrent inoperable or metastatic triple-negative breast cancer
Rebecca A Dent, David W Cescon, Thomas Bachelot, Kyung Hae Jung, Zhi-Ming Shao, Shigehira Saji, Tiffany A Traina, Petra Vukovic, Darlington Mapiye, Micah J Maxwell, Peter Schmid, Javier Cortés
Future Oncology.2023; 19(35): 2349. CrossRef
An integrated analysis of Sacituzumab govitecan in relapsed or refractory metastatic triple-negative breast cancer
Shao-Xian Cheng, Qiu-Chi Chen, Guo-He Lin, Yan-Hong Han, Bi-Cheng Wang, Yi Dai, Yan-Xia Zhao
Medicine.2023; 102(30): e34486. CrossRef
Post-marketing safety surveillance of sacituzumab govitecan: an observational, pharmacovigilance study leveraging FAERS database
Wensheng Liu, Qiong Du, Zihan Guo, Xuan Ye, Jiyong Liu
Frontiers in Pharmacology.2023;[Epub] CrossRef
Effects of Sacituzumab on Breast Cancer: Target Therapy
Elina Armani Khatibi, Tooba Gholikhani, Balam Jimenez Brito, Nastaran Farshbaf Moghimi
Biomedical Research Bulletin.2023; 1(4): 141. CrossRef
The Place of Chemotherapy in The Evolving Treatment Landscape for Patients With HR-positive/HER2-negative MBC
Chris Twelves, Rupert Bartsch, Noa Efrat Ben-Baruch, Simona Borstnar, Luc Dirix, Petra Tesarova, Constanta Timcheva, Lyudmila Zhukova, Xavier Pivot
Clinical Breast Cancer.2022; 22(3): 223. CrossRef
Quality-of-life methodology in hormone receptor–positive advanced breast cancer: Current tools and perspectives for the future
Fatima Cardoso, David Cella, Galina Velikova, Victoria Harmer, Eva Schumacher-Wulf, Julie Rihani, Ana Casas, Nadia Harbeck
Cancer Treatment Reviews.2022; 102: 102321. CrossRef
Comprehensive metabolomics expands precision medicine for triple-negative breast cancer
Yi Xiao, Ding Ma, Yun-Song Yang, Fan Yang, Jia-Han Ding, Yue Gong, Lin Jiang, Li-Ping Ge, Song-Yang Wu, Qiang Yu, Qing Zhang, François Bertucci, Qiuzhuang Sun, Xin Hu, Da-Qiang Li, Zhi-Ming Shao, Yi-Zhou Jiang
Cell Research.2022; 32(5): 477. CrossRef
Major advancements in metastatic breast cancer treatment: when expanding options means prolonging survival
F. Miglietta, M. Bottosso, G. Griguolo, M.V. Dieci, V. Guarneri
ESMO Open.2022; 7(2): 100409. CrossRef
Association of Quality-of-Life Outcomes in Cancer Drug Trials With Survival Outcomes and Drug Class
Joseph N. Samuel, Christopher M. Booth, Elizabeth Eisenhauer, Michael Brundage, Scott R. Berry, Bishal Gyawali
JAMA Oncology.2022; 8(6): 879. CrossRef
Analysis of patients without and with an initial triple-negative breast cancer diagnosis in the phase 3 randomized ASCENT study of sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer
Joyce O’Shaughnessy, Adam Brufsky, Hope S. Rugo, Sara M. Tolaney, Kevin Punie, Sagar Sardesai, Erika Hamilton, Delphine Loirat, Tiffany Traina, Roberto Leon-Ferre, Sara A. Hurvitz, Kevin Kalinsky, Aditya Bardia, Stephanie Henry, Ingrid Mayer, Yanni Zhu, S
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.2022; 195(2): 127. CrossRef
Sacituzumab govitecan as second-line treatment for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer—phase 3 ASCENT study subanalysis
Lisa A. Carey, Delphine Loirat, Kevin Punie, Aditya Bardia, Véronique Diéras, Florence Dalenc, Jennifer R. Diamond, Christel Fontaine, Grace Wang, Hope S. Rugo, Sara A. Hurvitz, Kevin Kalinsky, Joyce O’Shaughnessy, Sibylle Loibl, Luca Gianni, Martine Picc
npj Breast Cancer.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Safety analyses from the phase 3 ASCENT trial of sacituzumab govitecan in metastatic triple-negative breast cancer
Hope S. Rugo, Sara M. Tolaney, Delphine Loirat, Kevin Punie, Aditya Bardia, Sara A. Hurvitz, Joyce O’Shaughnessy, Javier Cortés, Véronique Diéras, Lisa A. Carey, Luca Gianni, Martine J. Piccart, Sibylle Loibl, David M. Goldenberg, Quan Hong, Martin Olivo,
npj Breast Cancer.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Apatinib plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer who failed first/second-line treatment: the NAN trial
Dou-Dou Li, Zhong-hua Tao, Bi-Yun Wang, Lei-Ping Wang, Jun Cao, Xi-Chun Hu, Jian Zhang
npj Breast Cancer.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Combination treatment of radiofrequency ablation and peptide neoantigen vaccination: Promising modality for future cancer immunotherapy
Jiawei Shou, Fan Mo, Shanshan Zhang, Lantian Lu, Ning Han, Liang Liu, Min Qiu, Hongseng Li, Weidong Han, Dongying Ma, Xiaojie Guo, Qianpeng Guo, Qinxue Huang, Xiaomeng Zhang, Shengli Ye, Hongming Pan, Shuqing Chen, Yong Fang
Frontiers in Immunology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
A prospective, open-label, multicenter phase IV clinical trial on the safety and efficacy of lobaplatin-based chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer
Min Yan, Peng Yuan, Quchang Ouyang, Ying Cheng, Guohui Han, Dewei Wang, Li Ran, Tao Sun, Da Zhao, Yuju Bai, Shun’e Yang, Xiaojia Wang, Rong Wu, Xiaohua Zeng, Herui Yao, Xuening Ji, Jun Jiang, Xiaohua Hu, Haifeng Lin, Liping Zheng, Zhitu Zhu, Wei Ge, Junla
Therapeutic Advances in Medical Oncology.2022;[Epub] CrossRef
Phase I study of liposomal irinotecan in patients with metastatic breast cancer: findings from the expansion phase
Jasgit C. Sachdev, Pamela Munster, Donald W. Northfelt, Hyo Sook Han, Cynthia Ma, Fiona Maxwell, Tiffany Wang, Bruce Belanger, Bin Zhang, Yan Moore, Arunthathi Thiagalingam, Carey Anders
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment.2021; 185(3): 759. CrossRef
Sacituzumab Govitecan in Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
Aditya Bardia, Sara A. Hurvitz, Sara M. Tolaney, Delphine Loirat, Kevin Punie, Mafalda Oliveira, Adam Brufsky, Sagar D. Sardesai, Kevin Kalinsky, Amelia B. Zelnak, Robert Weaver, Tiffany Traina, Florence Dalenc, Philippe Aftimos, Filipa Lynce, Sami Diab,
New England Journal of Medicine.2021; 384(16): 1529. CrossRef
Glembatumumab vedotin for patients with metastatic, gpNMB overexpressing, triple-negative breast cancer (“METRIC”): a randomized multicenter study
Linda T. Vahdat, Peter Schmid, Andres Forero-Torres, Kimberly Blackwell, Melinda L. Telli, Michelle Melisko, Volker Möbus, Javier Cortes, Alberto J. Montero, Cynthia Ma, Rita Nanda, Gail S. Wright, Yi He, Thomas Hawthorne, Rebecca G. Bagley, Abdel-Baset H
npj Breast Cancer.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Occult triple negative male breast cancer. The usefulness of molecular platforms. A case report
Angelats L, Estival A, Martinez-Cardús A, Musulen E, Margelí M
Current Problems in Cancer: Case Reports.2021; : 100097. CrossRef
A Retrospective Analysis of the Effect of Irinotecan-Based Regimens in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated With Anthracyclines and Taxanes
Jiaojiao Suo, Xiaorong Zhong, Ping He, Hong Zheng, Tinglun Tian, Xi Yan, Ting Luo
Frontiers in Oncology.2021;[Epub] CrossRef
Impact of Value Frameworks on the Magnitude of Clinical Benefit: Evaluating a Decade of Randomized Trials for Systemic Therapy in Solid Malignancies
Ellen Cusano, Chelsea Wong, Eddy Taguedong, Marcus Vaska, Tasnima Abedin, Nancy Nixon, Safiya Karim, Patricia Tang, Daniel Y. C. Heng, Doreen Ezeife
Current Oncology.2021; 28(6): 4894. CrossRef
High Antitumor Activity of the Dual Topoisomerase Inhibitor P8-D6 in Breast Cancer
Inken Flörkemeier, Tamara N. Steinhauer, Nina Hedemann, Jörg Paul Weimer, Christoph Rogmans, Marion T. van Mackelenbergh, Nicolai Maass, Bernd Clement, Dirk O. Bauerschlag
Cancers.2021; 14(1): 2. CrossRef
Clinical outcomes of breast cancer patients treated in phase I clinical trials at University of Colorado Cancer Center
Jennifer A. Weiss, Andrew Nicklawsky, Jodi A. Kagihara, Dexiang Gao, Christine Fisher, Anthony Elias, Virginia F. Borges, Peter Kabos, Sarah L. Davis, Stephen Leong, Sue Gail Eckhardt, Jennifer R. Diamond
Cancer Medicine.2020; 9(23): 8801. CrossRef
Chemotherapy Options beyond the First Line in HER-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer
Vito Lorusso, Agnese Latorre, Francesco Giotta, Ozkan Kanat
Journal of Oncology.2020; 2020: 1. CrossRef
Sacituzumab Govitecan-hziy in Refractory Metastatic Triple-Negative Breast Cancer
Aditya Bardia, Ingrid A. Mayer, Linda T. Vahdat, Sara M. Tolaney, Steven J. Isakoff, Jennifer R. Diamond, Joyce O’Shaughnessy, Rebecca L. Moroose, Alessandro D. Santin, Vandana G. Abramson, Nikita C. Shah, Hope S. Rugo, David M. Goldenberg, Ala M. Sweidan
New England Journal of Medicine.2019; 380(8): 741. CrossRef
An open label phase 1 study evaluation safety, tolerability, and maximum tolerated dose of oral administration of irinotecan in combination with capecitabine
I. Kümler, R. L. Eefsen, Peter Grundtvig Sørensen, S. Theile, A. Fullerton, P. G. Nielsen, Benny Vittrup Jensen, D. L. Nielsen
Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology.2019; 84(2): 441. CrossRef
Exploiting DNA repair defects in breast cancer: from chemotherapy to immunotherapy
Burak Yasin Aktas, Gurkan Guner, Deniz Can Guven, Cagatay Arslan, Omer Dizdar
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy.2019; 19(7): 589. CrossRef
Sacituzumab govitecan: breakthrough targeted therapy for triple-negative breast cancer
Jennifer Weiss, Ashley Glode, Wells A. Messersmith, Jennifer Diamond
Expert Review of Anticancer Therapy.2019; 19(8): 673. CrossRef
The role of capecitabine and eribulin in the treatment of metastatic HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer
I V Kolyadina, I V Poddubnaya
Journal of Modern Oncology.2018; 20(3): 26. CrossRef

PubReader
ePub Link

Cite

CITE: export Copy Download Format; Close

Download Citation

Download a citation file in RIS format that can be imported by all major citation management software, including EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and Reference Manager.

Format:

RIS — For EndNote, ProCite, RefWorks, and most other reference management software
BibTeX — For JabRef, BibDesk, and other BibTeX-specific software

Include:

Citation for the content below
Citation and abstract for the content below

Randomized Open Label Phase III Trial of Irinotecan Plus Capecitabine versus Capecitabine Monotherapy in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated with Anthracycline and Taxane: PROCEED Trial (KCSG BR 11-01)

Cancer Res Treat. 2019;51(1):43-52. Published online February 14, 2018

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4143/crt.2017.562

XML Download

Abstract
Introduction
Materials and Methods
Results
Discussion
NOTES
REFERENCES

A Phase II Trial of S-1 and Oxaliplatin in Patients with Metastatic Breast Cancer Previously Treated with Anthracycline and Taxane (KCSG-BR07-03)

Fig. 1. Study flowchart. ITT, intention-to-treat.

Fig. 2. Survival analysis in the intention-to-treat population. Kaplan-Meier curve for progression-free survival (PFS) (A) and overall survival (OS) (B) between irinotecan and capecitabine combination (IX) and capecitabine alone (X). mPFS, median PFS; mOS, median OS; CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 3. The forest plots of progression-free survival in subgroups stratified by clinical factors. IX, irinotecan and capecitabine combination; X, capecitabine; HR, hazard ratio; CI, confidence interval; TNBC, triple negative breast cancer.

Fig. 4. Survival analysis in the triple negative breast cancer subgroup. Kaplan-Meier curve for progression-free survival (PFS) (A) and overall survival (OS) (B) between irinotecan and capecitabine combination (IX) and capecitabine alone (X). mPFS, median PFS; mOS, median OS; CI, confidence interval.

Fig. 5. Quality of life measurement. (A) The difference between baseline and each time point in global health and functional subscales. Positive values meant improved state compared with baseline. (B) The change in symptom subscales from baseline. In contrast to functional subscales, negative values meant improved state. IX, irinotecan and capecitabine combination; X, capecitabine. *p > 0.05.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 2.

Fig. 3.

Fig. 4.

Fig. 5.

Characteristic	IX (n=114)	X (n=107)	p-value
Age, median (range, yr)	50 (29-73)	49 (30-80)	0.64
ECOG PS
0	26 (22.8)	24 (22.4)	0.82
1	87 (76.3)	81 (75.7)
2	1 (0.9)	2 (1.9)
Menopausal status
Pre-menopause	30 (26.3)	32 (29.9)	0.65
Post-menopause	84 (73.7)	75 (70.1)
ER/PgR
Positive	62 (54.4)	69 (64.5)	0.13
Negative	52 (45.6)	38 (35.5)
(Neo)Adjuvant chemotherapy	89 (78.1)	77 (72.0)	0.35
Adjuvant endocrine	48 (42.1)	43 (40.2)	0.79
Visceral metastasis
Yes	66 (57.9)	63 (58.9)	0.89
No	48 (42.1)	44 (41.1)
Previous palliative endocrine therapy
Yes	38 (33.3)	44 (41.1)	0.23
No	76 (66.7)	63 (58.9)
No. of previous chemotherapies
0	13 (11.4)	13 (12.1)	0.27
1	61 (53.5)	48 (44.9)
≥ 2	40 (35.1)	46 (43.0)

	IX (n=99)	X (n=84)	p-value
CR	4 (4.0)	1 (1.2)
PR	40 (40.4)	27 (32.1)
SD	30 (30.3)	26 (31.0)
PD	16 (16.2)	22 (26.2)
Not known	9 (9.1)	8 (9.5)
ORR	44 (44.4)	28 (33.3)	0.30

	IX (n=111)	X (n=100)
Dose reduction	61 (54.9)	34 (34.0)
Hematologic AE	52 (85.2)	9 (26.5)
Hand-foot syndrome	12 (23.1)	17 (50.0)
Diarrhea	4 (6.6)	0
Dose interruption	38 (34.2)	25 (25.0)
Hematologic AE	27 (71.1)	14 (56.0)
Hand-foot syndrome	5 (13.2)	7 (28.0)
Neutropenic fever	1 (2.6)	1 (4.0)
Diarrhea	1 (2.6)	1 (4.0)
Treatment discontinuation	1 (0.9)	3 (3.0)
	1 (arrhythmia)	1 (infection), 2 (hematologic AE)

	IX (n=111)		X (n=100)		p-value
	Grade 1-2	Grade 3-4	Grade 1-2	Grade 3-4	p-value
Hematologic AE
Neutropenia	26 (23.4)	44 (39.6)	7 (7.0)	9 (9.0)	< 0.001
Anemia	3 (2.7)	16 (14.4)	10 (10.0)	1 (1.0)	< 0.001
Thrombocytopenia	7 (6.3)	0	4 (4.0)	0	0.45
Non-hematologic AE
Hand-foot syndrome	33 (29.7)	2 (1.8)	49 (49.0)	4 (4.0)	0.007
Diarrhea	46 (41.4)	3 (2.7)	29 (29.0)	1 (1.0)	0.012
Nausea/Vomiting	61 (54.9)	0	36 (36.0)	2 (2.0)	0.03
Liver function abnormality	2 (1.8)	0	7 (7.0)	1 (1.0)	0.098
Paronychia	2 (1.8)	0	4 (4.0)	1 (1.0)	0.36
Edema	9 (8.1)	0	5 (5.0)	0	0.37
Asthenia	3 (2.7)	0	5 (5.0)	0	0.38
Insomnia	15 (13.5)	0	7 (7.0)	0	0.12

Table 1. The baseline patient characteristics

Table 2. Tumor responses for patients with measurable disease

Table 3. Dose modification of study drugs according to AEs

Values are presented as number (%). AE, adverse events; IX, irinotecan and capecitabine combination; X, capecitabine alone.

Table 4. Treatment related adverse events in both arms

Values are presented as number (%). IX, irinotecan plus capecitabine arm; X, capecitabine alone arm; AE, adverse events.