Breast Cancer Research and Treatment

, Volume 121, Issue 2, pp 261–271 | Cite as

Efficacy of ixabepilone in ER/PR/HER2-negative (triple-negative) breast cancer

  • Edith A. Perez
  • Tejal Patel
  • Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia
Review

Abstract

Patients with ER/PR/HER2-negative (triple negative) breast cancer are not candidates for hormonal therapy or HER2-targeted agents. Ongoing research is aimed at identifying and understanding the benefit of established and emerging therapies in this disease setting. Triple-negative patients may achieve early responses to anthracyclines and taxanes, but novel strategies are also eagerly sought. The epothilone B analog ixabepilone acts to stabilize microtubules and demonstrates antitumor activity in recent breast cancer studies. Herein, we have analyzed efficacy and safety data of ixabepilone specifically for the treatment of women with triple-negative disease. A retrospective analysis was completed using activity and toxicity data in the triple-negative subsets from 5 phase II studies. In addition, a prospective pooled analysis of triple-negative patients from 2 phase III trials is also reviewed. Of 2,261 patients evaluated in these trials, 556 (24.5%) had triple-negative tumors. In the neoadjuvant setting, ixabepilone produced a pathologic complete response rate in the breast of 26% in triple-negative patients (vs. 15% in the non-triple-negative population). In patients with metastatic breast cancer whose pretreatment status ranged from no prior therapy to progression on several classes of agents, overall response rates (ORR) in the phase II ixabepilone monotherapy trials ranged from 6 to 55%, comparable to rates seen in patients with non-triple-negative tumors. The combination of ixabepilone and capecitabine in the phase II study resulted in an ORR of 23% in triple-negative patients. A similar ORR (31%) was observed for a preplanned pooled analysis of triple-negative patients in the phase III trials of ixabepilone plus capecitabine. The median progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly longer for triple-negative patients treated with ixabepilone plus capecitabine (4.2 months) compared with treatment with capecitabine alone (1.7 months). No increase in toxicity was noted in the triple-negative subgroup compared with other patients. Ixabepilone shows notable antitumor activity in patients with triple-negative breast cancer when used in a variety of settings. The addition of ixabepilone to capecitabine results in an approximately twofold increase in median PFS for triple-negative patients versus capecitabine alone and responses to ixabepilone in triple-negative disease are comparable to those seen in patients with non-triple-negative tumors.

Keywords

Breast cancer ER/PR/HER2-negative Triple negative Basal-like Ixabepilone Epothilone 

Abbreviations

BCS

Breast-conserving surgery

EGFR

Epidermal growth factor receptor

ER

Estrogen receptor

HER2

Human epidermal growth factor receptor 2

HR

Hazard ratio

mo

Months

MBC

Metastatic breast cancer

ORR

Overall response rate

OS

Overall survival

pCR

Pathologic complete response

PFS

Progression-free survival

PR

Progesterone receptor

Notes

Acknowledgments

As the lead author, Dr. Perez takes full responsibility for the content of this publication and confirms that it reflects the viewpoint and medical expertise of herself and her colleagues. The authors also wish to acknowledge StemScientific, funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb, for providing writing and editing support. Bristol-Myers Squibb did not influence the content of the manuscript, nor did the authors receive financial compensation for authoring the manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Brennan DJ, O’Brien SL, Fagan A et al (2005) Application of DNA microarray technology in determining breast cancer prognosis and therapeutic response. Expert Opin Biol Ther 5:1069–1083CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kaklamani V (2006) A genetic signature can predict prognosis and response to therapy in breast cancer: oncotype DX. Expert Rev Mol Diagn 6:803–809CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cleator S, Heller W, Coombes RC (2007) Triple-negative breast cancer: therapeutic options. Lancet Oncol 8:235–244CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Altmann KH, Wartmann M, O’Reilly T (2000) Epothilones and related structures—a new class of microtubule inhibitors with potent in vivo antitumor activity. Biochim Biophys Acta 1470:M79–M91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lee FY, Borzilleri R, Fairchild CR et al (2001) BMS-247550: a novel epothilone analog with a mode of action similar to paclitaxel but possessing superior antitumor efficacy. Clin Cancer Res 7:1429–1437PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Jordan MA, Miller H, Ray A, et al (2006) The Pat-21 breast cancer model derived from a patient with primary Taxol® resistance recapitulates the phenotype of its origin, has altered β-tubulin expression and is sensitive to ixabepilone. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 47:73 (abstract LB-280)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Perou CM, Sorlie T, Eisen MB et al (2000) Molecular portraits of human breast tumours. Nature 406:747–752CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sorlie T, Tibshirani R, Parker J et al (2003) Repeated observation of breast tumor subtypes in independent gene expression data sets. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 100:8418–8423CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Carey LA, Perou CM, Livasy CA et al (2006) Race, breast cancer subtypes, and survival in the Carolina Breast Cancer Study. JAMA 295:2492–2502CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Haffty BG, Yang Q, Reiss M et al (2006) Locoregional relapse and distant metastasis in conservatively managed triple negative early-stage breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 24:5652–5657CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Finnegan TJ, Carey LA (2007) Gene-expression analysis and the basal-like breast cancer subtype. Future Oncol 3(1):55–63CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nielsen TO, Hsu FD, Jensen K et al (2004) Immunohistochemical and clinical characterization of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Clin Cancer Res 10:5367–5374CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Siziopikou KP, Cobleigh M (2007) The basal subtype of breast carcinomas may represent the group of breast tumors that could benefit from EGFR-targeted therapies. Breast 16:104–107CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Korsching E, Packeisen J, Agelopoulos K et al (2002) Cytogenetic alterations and cytokeratin expression patterns in breast cancer: integrating a new model of breast differentiation into cytogenetic pathways of breast carcinogenesis. Lab Investig 82:1525–1533PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bergamaschi A, Kim YH, Wang P et al (2006) Distinct patterns of DNA copy number alteration are associated with different clinicopathological features and gene-expression subtypes of breast cancer. Genes Chromosomes Cancer 45:1033–1040CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang ZC, Lin M, Wei LJ et al (2004) Loss of heterozygosity and its correlation with expression profiles in subclasses of invasive breast cancers. Cancer Res 64:64–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hartman AR, Ford JM (2003) BRCA1 and p53: compensatory roles in DNA repair. J Mol Med 81:700–707CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Harris LN, Broadwater G, Lin NU et al (2006) Molecular subtypes of breast cancer in relation to paclitaxel response, outcomes in women with metastatic disease: results from CALGB. Breast Cancer Res 8:R66CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    James CR, Quinn JE, Mullan PB, Johnston PG, Harkin DP (2007) BRCA1, a potential predictive biomarker in the treatment of breast cancer. Oncologist 12:142–150CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Kennedy RD, Quinn JE, Mullan PB, Johnston PG, Harkin DP (2004) The role of BRCA1 in the cellular response to chemotherapy. J Natl Cancer Inst 96:1659–1668PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Livasy CA, Karaca G, Nanda R et al (2006) Phenotypic evaluation of the basal-like subtype of invasive breast carcinoma. Mod Pathol 19:264–271CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Rakha EA, El-Sayed ME, Green AR, Lee AH, Robertson JF, Ellis IO (2007) Prognostic markers in triple-negative breast cancer. Cancer 109:25–32CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Osbourne CR, Kannan L, Ashfaq R et al (2005) Clinical and pathological characterization of basal-like breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 118 (abstract)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Rodriguez-Pinilla SM, Sarrio D, Honrado E et al (2006) Prognostic significance of basal-like phenotype and fascin expression in node-negative invasive breast carcinomas. Clin Cancer Res 12:1533–1539CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tsuda H, Takarabe T, Hasegawa F et al (2000) Large, central acellular zones indicating myoepithelial tumor differentiation in high-grade invasive ductal carcinomas as markers of predisposition to lung and brain metastases. Am J Surg Pathol 24:197–202CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rouzier R, Perou CM, Symmans WF et al (2005) Breast cancer molecular subtypes respond differently to preoperative chemotherapy. Clin Cancer Res 11:5678–5685CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Liedtke C, Mazouni C, Hess KR et al (2007) Differential response to primary chemotherapy and long-term survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25(18S):10519 (abstract)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Moynahan ME, Cui TY, Jasin M (2001) Homology-directed DNA repair, mitomycin C resistance, and chromosome stability is restored with correction of BRCA1 mutation. Cancer Res 61:4842–4850PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Bhattacharyya A, Ear US, Holler BH et al (2000) The breast cancer susceptibility gene BRCA1 is required for subnuclear assembly of Rad51 and survival following treatment with the DNA cross-linking agent cisplatin. J Biol Chem 275:23899–23903CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Wang S, Yang H, Tong F et al (2009) Response to neoadjuvant therapy and disease free survival in patients with triple-negative breast cancer. Gan To Kagaku Ryoho 36(2):255–258PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    O’Shaughnessy J, Osborne C, Pippen J et al (2009) Efficacy of BSI-201, a poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase-1 (PARP1) inhibitor, in combination with gemcitabine/carboplatin (G/C) in patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (TNBC): results of a randomized phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 27:18sCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Corkery B, O’Donovan N, Clynes M, Crown J (2007) Epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) inhibition in triple-negative breast cancer (BrCa). J Clin Oncol 25(18):14071 (abstract)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Huang F, Reeves K, Han X et al (2007) Identification of candidate molecular markers predicting sensitivity in solid tumors to dasatinib: rationale for patient selection. Cancer Res 67:2226–2238CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Miller KD (2005) Angiogenic therapy for breast cancer.In: 28th annual San Antonio breast cancer symposium, San Antonio, TX, USA, 8–11 DecGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Altundag K, Harputluoglu H, Aksoy S, Gullu IH (2007) Potential chemotherapy options in the triple negative subtype of breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:1294–1295CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Nogales E, Wolf SG, Khan IA, Ludueña RF, Downing KH (1995) Structure of tubulin at 6.5 Å and location of the taxol-binding site. Nature 375:424–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Giannakakou P, Gussio R, Nogales R et al (2000) A common pharmacophore for epothilone and taxanes: molecular basis for drug resistance conferred by tubulin mutations in human cancer cells. Proc Nat Acad Sci 97(6):2904–2909CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kolman A (2005) Activity of epothilones. Curr Opin Investig Drugs 6:616–622PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Llombart-Cussac A, Baselga J, Manikhas E et al (2005) Phase II genomics study in patients receiving ixabepilone as neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer (BC): preliminary efficacy and safety data. J Clin Oncol 23(16s):586 (abstract)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Fisher B, Brown A, Mamounas E et al (1997) Effect of preoperative chemotherapy on local-regional disease in women with operable breast cancer: findings from National Surgical Adjuvant Breast and Bowel Project B-18. J Clin Oncol 15:2483–2493PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Gradishar WJ (1997) Docetaxel as neoadjuvant chemotherapy in patients with stage III breast cancer. Oncology 11:15–18PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Buzdar AU, Singletary SE, Theriault RL et al (1999) Prospective evaluation of paclitaxel versus combination chemotherapy with fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as neoadjuvant therapy in patients with operable breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:3412–3417PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Amat S, Bougnoux P, Penault-Llorca F et al (2003) Neoadjuvant docetaxel for operable breast cancer induces a high pathological response and breast-conservation rate. Br J Cancer 88:1339–1345CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Estevez LG, Cuevas JM, Anton A et al (2003) Weekly docetaxel as neoadjuvant chemotherapy for stage II and III breast cancer: efficacy and correlation with biological markers in a phase II, multicenter study. Clin Cancer Res 9:686–692PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Gradishar WJ, Wedam SB, Jahanzeb M et al (2005) Neoadjuvant docetaxel followed by adjuvant doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide in patients with stage III breast cancer. Ann Oncol 16:1297–1304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Baselga J, Zambetti M, Llombart-Cussac A et al (2009) Phase II genomics study of ixabepilone as neoadjuvant treatment for breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 27:526–534CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Horak CE, Lee FY, Xu L, Galbraith S, Baselga J (2009) High β-III tubulin expression in triple-negative (TN) breast cancer (BC) subtype and correlation to ixabepilone response: a retrospective analysis. J Clin Oncol 27:15sCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Roché H, Perez E, Llombart-Cussac A et al (2006) Ixabepilone, an epothilone analog, is effective in ER-, PR-, HER2-negative (triple-negative) patients: data from neoadjuvant and metastatic breast cancer trials. Ann Oncol 17 (Suppl 9):ix97–ix98Google Scholar
  49. 49.
    Bunnell C, Vahdat L, Schwartzberg L et al (2008) Phase I/II study of ixabepilone plus capecitabine in anthracycline-pretreated/resistant and taxane-resistant metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 8:234–241CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Thomas ES, Gomez HL, Li RK et al (2007) Ixabepilone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline and taxane treatment. J Clin Oncol 25(33):5210–5217CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Hortobagyi GN, Perez E, Vrdoljak E et al (2008) Analysis of overall survival (OS) among patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) receiving either ixabepilone (I) plus capecitabine (C) or C alone: Results from two randomized phase III trials. In: ASCO breast cancer symposium, Washington, DC, USA, 5–7 SeptGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Rugo HS, Roche H, Thomas E, et al (2008) Ixabepilone plus capecitabine vs. capecitabine in patients with triple negative tumors: a pooled analysis of patients from two large phase III clinical studies. In: 31st Annual San Antonio Breast Cancer symposium, San Antonio, TX, USA, 10–14 DecGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Vahdat L, Bunnell C, Schwartzberg L et al (2006) Ixabepilone is effective in combination with capecitabine in ER-, PR-, HER2-negative (triple-negative) patients pretreated with taxanes and anthracyclines: final results from a breast cancer exploratory program. Ann Oncol 17(Suppl 9):ix69–ix92 (abstract 159P)Google Scholar
  54. 54.
    IXEMPRA® (2009) Prescribing information. Bristol-Myers Squibb, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Zhou J, Giannakakou P (2005) Targeting microtubules for cancer chemotherapy. Curr Med Chem Anticancer Agents 5:65–71CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Larkin JMG, Kaye SB (2006) Epothilones in the treatment of cancer. Expert Opin Investig Drugs 15(6):691–702CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Perez E, Pivot X, Vrdoljak E, et al (2008) A prospective characterization of the resolution of ixabepilone induced peripheral neuropathy: data from a large registrational program in patients with metastatic breast cancer. In: 31st annual San Antonio breast cancer symposium, San Antonio, TX, USA, 10–14 DecGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Roy V, LaPlant BR, Gross GG, Bane CL, Palmieri FM, for the North Central Cancer Treatment Group (2009) Phase II trial of weekly nab (nanoparticle albumin-bound)-paclitaxel (nab-paclitaxel) (Abraxane) in combination with gemcitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer (NO531). Ann Oncol 20(3):449–453CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Yardley DA, Burris HA III, Simons L et al (2008) A phase II trial of gemcitabine/carboplatin with or without trastuzumab in the first-line treatment of patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer 8(5):425–431CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Miller K, Wang M, Gralow J et al (2007) Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 357:2666–2676CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Edith A. Perez
    • 1
  • Tejal Patel
    • 1
  • Alvaro Moreno-Aspitia
    • 1
  1. 1.Division of Hematology and Oncology, College of MedicienMayo ClinicJacksonvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations