The prognosis and risk factors for capecitabine maintenance treatment in metastatic breast cancer: a retrospective comparative cohort study

被引:0
作者
Tian, Can [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Yang, Jianbo [4 ,5 ]
Xie, Ning [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Tang, Yu [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Zhou, Haoyu [6 ]
Hu, Zhe-Yu [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Ouyang, Quchang [1 ,2 ,3 ]
机构
[1] Cent South Univ, Hunan Canc Hosp, Med Dept Breast Canc, Changsha, Peoples R China
[2] Cent South Univ, Affiliated Canc Hosp, Xiangya Med Sch, Changsha, Peoples R China
[3] Cent South Univ, Affiliated Canc Hosp, Dept Breast Canc Med Oncol, Xiangya Med Sch, Changsha, Peoples R China
[4] Univ Minnesota, Dept Otolaryngol, Immunotherapy Res Lab, Minneapolis, MN USA
[5] Fujian Med Univ, Canc Ctr, Union Hosp, Fuzhou, Peoples R China
[6] Hunan Agr Univ, Coll Informat & Intelligence, Changsha, Peoples R China
基金
美国国家科学基金会;
关键词
Capecitabine maintenance; metastatic breast cancer (MBC); progression-free survival (PFS); TP53; aberrations; RESPONSE EVALUATION CRITERIA; 1ST-LINE CHEMOTHERAPY; ENDOCRINE THERAPY; POOR-PROGNOSIS; SURVIVAL; PACLITAXEL; RECEPTOR; BEVACIZUMAB; DOCETAXEL;
D O I
10.21037/atm-22-3828
中图分类号
R73 [肿瘤学];
学科分类号
100214 ;
摘要
Background: Maintenance treatment following efficient chemotherapy can improve the treatment outcomes of patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). However, there are no studies for identifying the prognostic factors for patients who could benefit from capecitabine maintenance. Therefore, this study aimed to investigate the prognosis and risk factors of capecitabine maintenance therapy and analysed the circulating tumour DNA (ctDNA) markers that may be related to the treatment response. Methods: This study recruited 482 consecutive patients with MBC who achieved clinical benefit from capecitabine-based chemotherapy from 2011 to 2019. A total of 256 patients received subsequent capecitabine maintenance therapy. The baseline clinical factors included age at diagnosis, menopause, neoadjuvant therapy, estrogen receptor (ER), progesterone receptor (PR), human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2) status and subtypes, prior treatment lines, and prior capecitabine-based treatment response. Treatment outcome (progression-free survival, PFS) was assessed by imaging tools according to RSCIST 1.1 standard during the first two treatment cycles and every 3 weeks thereafter. Univariate and multivariate Cox proportional hazards models were used to analyse the association between capecitabine maintenance treatment and prognosis. Results: The median PFS of patients receiving capecitabine maintenance treatment was 21.7 months [95% confidence interval (CI): 15.1-36.3 months]. Capecitabine maintenance showed similar effects as endocrine maintenance or anti-HER2 therapy in hormone receptor (HR)-positive or HER2-positive patients, with adjusted HR of 1.17 (95% CI: 0.81-1.71, P=0.40). In patients with triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC), capecitabine maintenance showed a marginal benefit in PFS. Compared to late-line (>= 2) capecitabine maintenance, first-line capecitabine maintenance significantly prolonged median PFS. Compared to other HR/ HER2 subtypes, patients with HR-positive and HER2-positive subtypes significantly benefited from capecitabine maintenance treatment. Analysis of ctDNA revealed that among patients receiving capecitabine maintenance, TP53 aberrations were concentrated in patients with short PFS. Conclusions: Capecitabine maintenance treatment is associated with longer PFS in patients with MBC, especially those receiving first-line capecitabine-based chemotherapy and those with HR positivity/HER2 positivity. TP53 aberrations may be responsible for the poor response to capecitabine maintenance treatment.
引用
收藏
页数:17
相关论文
共 36 条
  • [1] Maintenance treatment with Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus observation following induction chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: GEICAM 2001-01 study
    Alba, Emilio
    Ruiz-Borrego, Manuel
    Margeli, Mireia
    Rodriguez-Lescure, Alvaro
    Sanchez-Rovira, Pedro
    Ruiz, Amparo
    Mel-Lorenzo, Jose Ramon
    Ramos-Vazquez, Manuel
    Ribelles, Nuria
    Calvo, Elisa
    Casado, Antonio
    Marquez, Antonia
    Vicente, David
    Garcia-Saenz, Jose Angel
    Martin, Miguel
    [J]. BREAST CANCER RESEARCH AND TREATMENT, 2010, 122 (01) : 169 - 176
  • [2] Worse survival for TP53 (p53)-mutated breast cancer patients receiving adjuvant CMF
    Andersson, J
    Larsson, L
    Klaar, S
    Holmberg, L
    Nilsson, J
    Inganäs, M
    Carlsson, G
    Öhd, J
    Rudenstam, CM
    Gustavsson, B
    Bergh, J
    [J]. ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2005, 16 (05) : 743 - 748
  • [3] Berns EMJJ, 2000, CANCER RES, V60, P2155
  • [4] Locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: ESMO Clinical Practice Guidelines for diagnosis, treatment and follow-up
    Cardoso, F.
    Fallowfield, L.
    Costa, A.
    Castiglione, M.
    Senkus, E.
    [J]. ANNALS OF ONCOLOGY, 2011, 22 : vi25 - vi30
  • [5] Final Results of the Randomized Phase II NorCap-CA223 Trial Comparing First-Line All-Oral Versus Taxane-Based Chemotherapy for HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer
    Cinieri, Saverio
    Chan, Arlene
    Altundag, Kadri
    Vandebroek, An
    Tubiana-Mathieu, Nicole
    Barnadas, Agusti
    Dodyk, Patricia
    Lazzarelli, Silvia
    Botha, Michiel
    Rauch, Daniel
    Villanova, Gustavo
    Coskun, Ugur
    [J]. CLINICAL BREAST CANCER, 2017, 17 (02) : 91 - 99
  • [6] Maintenance Therapy in HER2-Negative Metastatic Breast Cancer: A New Approach for an Old Concept
    Ciruelos, Eva
    Manuel Perez-Garcia, Jose
    Gavila, Joaquin
    Rodriguez, Analia
    de la Haba-Rodriguez, Juan
    [J]. CLINICAL DRUG INVESTIGATION, 2019, 39 (07) : 595 - 606
  • [7] IMPROVING THE QUALITY-OF-LIFE DURING CHEMOTHERAPY FOR ADVANCED BREAST-CANCER - A COMPARISON OF INTERMITTENT AND CONTINUOUS TREATMENT STRATEGIES
    COATES, A
    GEBSKI, V
    BISHOP, JF
    JEAL, PN
    WOODS, RL
    SNYDER, R
    TATTERSALL, MHN
    BYRNE, M
    HARVEY, V
    GILL, G
    SIMPSON, J
    DRUMMOND, R
    BROWNE, J
    VANCOOTEN, R
    FORBES, JF
    [J]. NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE, 1987, 317 (24) : 1490 - 1495
  • [8] Dong GL, 2015, INT J CLIN EXP MED, V8, P8283
  • [9] New response evaluation criteria in solid tumours: Revised RECIST guideline (version 1.1)
    Eisenhauer, E. A.
    Therasse, P.
    Bogaerts, J.
    Schwartz, L. H.
    Sargent, D.
    Ford, R.
    Dancey, J.
    Arbuck, S.
    Gwyther, S.
    Mooney, M.
    Rubinstein, L.
    Shankar, L.
    Dodd, L.
    Kaplan, R.
    Lacombe, D.
    Verweij, J.
    [J]. EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2009, 45 (02) : 228 - 247
  • [10] Cancer statistics for the year 2020: An overview
    Ferlay, Jacques
    Colombet, Murielle
    Soerjomataram, Isabelle
    Parkin, Donald M.
    Pineros, Marion
    Znaor, Ariana
    Bray, Freddie
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CANCER, 2021, 149 (04) : 778 - 789