Advertisement

Advances in Therapy

, Volume 36, Issue 2, pp 381–406 | Cite as

Pan-European Expert Meeting on the Use of Metronomic Chemotherapy in Advanced Breast Cancer Patients: The PENELOPE Project

  • Marina E. CazzanigaEmail author
  • Elisabetta Munzone
  • Guido Bocci
  • Noémia Afonso
  • Patricia Gomez
  • Sven Langkjer
  • Edgar Petru
  • Xavier Pivot
  • Pedro Sánchez Rovira
  • Piotr Wysocki
  • Valter Torri
Original Research

Abstract

Introduction

Metronomic chemotherapy (mCHT) is a treatment regimen in which drugs are administered frequently or continuously and that maintains low, prolonged, and pharmacologically active plasma concentrations of drugs to avoid toxicity associated with traditional chemotherapy regimens, while achieving tumor response. Despite the increasing use of mCHT in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) and the endorsement of mCHT in guidelines, no consensus exists about which patients may substantially benefit from mCHT, which agents can be recommended, and in which treatment setting mCHT is most appropriate.

Methods

In October 2017, ten international experts in the management of breast cancer convened to develop a report describing the current status of the use of mCHT for the treatment of advanced breast cancer, based not only on current literature but also on their opinion. The Delphi method was used to reach consensus.

Results

A full consensus was reached concerning the acknowledgement that mCHT is not simply a different way of administering chemotherapy but a truly new treatment option. The best-known effect of mCHT is on angiogenesis inhibition, but exciting new data are on the way regarding potential activity on immune system activation. The experts strongly suggest that the ideal patients for mCHT are those with hormone receptor (HR)-positive tumors or those with triple-negative disease. Independently of HR status, mCHT could be an advantageous option for elderly patients, who are often under-treated simply because of their age.

Conclusion

Current data support the use of mCHT in selected patients with MBC.

Funding

Pierre Fabre.

Keywords

Breast cancer Consensus meeting Metronomic chemotherapy Vinorelbine 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Funding

This study and associated article processing charges was funded by Pierre Fabre.

Editorial Assistance

We would like to thank Simone Tait of Springer Healthcare Communications who edited this manuscript for English before submission. This medical writing assistance was funded by Pierre Fabre.

Authorship

All named authors meet the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) criteria for authorship for this article, take responsibility for the integrity of the work as a whole, and have given their approval for this version to be published.

Disclosures

Marina E Cazzaniga has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards for Pierre Fabre Pharma, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, and Celgene. Elisabetta Munzone has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Pierre Fabre Médicament. Guido Bocci has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Pierre Fabre Médicament. Noémia Afonso has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Pierre Fabre Médicament. Patricia Gomez has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Pierre Fabre Médicament. Edgar Petru has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Pierre Fabre Médicament. Xavier Pivot has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Pierre Fabre Médicament. Pedro Sánchez Rovira has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Pierre Fabre Médicament. Valter Torri has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards from Pierre Fabre Médicament. Sven Langkjer has received honoraria for participation in advisory boards of Pierre Fabre Médicament, research grants from the Danish Cancer Society, The Lundbeck Foundation and Pierre Fabre, and travel grants from Roche, Novartis, Bristol Myers Squibb and Pierre Fabre. Piotr J. Wysocki has received honoraria for advisory boards and speaker activities from Pierre Fabre Médicament, Roche, Astra Zeneca, Novartis, Pfizer, Eli Lilly.

Compliance with Ethics Guidelines

This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.

Data Availability

All data generated or analyzed during this study are included in this published article/as supplementary information files.

Supplementary material

12325_2018_844_MOESM1_ESM.tiff (59 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (TIFF 58 kb)
12325_2018_844_MOESM2_ESM.docx (41 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (DOCX 41 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Bishop AJ, Ensor J, Moulder SL, et al. Prognosis for patients with metastatic breast cancer who achieve a no-evidence-of-disease status after systemic or local therapy. Cancer. 2015;121:4324–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Cardoso F, Costa A, Senkus E, et al. 3rd ESO-ESMO international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC 3). Breast. 2017;31:244–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gennari A, Stockler M, Puntoni M, et al. Duration of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:2144–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bocci G, Kerbel RS. Pharmacokinetics of metronomic chemotherapy: a neglected but crucial aspect. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2016;13:659–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cazzaniga ME, Dionisio MR, Riva F. Metronomic chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer patients. Cancer Lett. 2017;400:252–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kareva I, Waxman DJ, Lakka Klement G. Metronomic chemotherapy: an attractive alternative to maximum tolerated dose therapy that can activate anti-tumor immunity and minimize therapeutic resistance. Cancer Lett. 2015;358:100–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Liu Y, Gu F, Liang J, et al. The efficacy and toxicity profile of metronomic chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a meta-analysis. PLoS One. 2017;12:e0173693.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Folkins C, Man S, Xu P, Shaked Y, Hicklin DJ, Kerbel RS. Anticancer therapies combining antiangiogenic and tumor cell cytotoxic effects reduce the tumor stem-like cell fraction in glioma xenograft tumors. Cancer Res. 2007;67:3560–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hao YB, Yi SY, Ruan J, Zhao L, Nan KJ. New insights into metronomic chemotherapy-induced immunoregulation. Cancer Lett. 2014;354:220–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Kerbel RS, Shaked Y. The potential clinical promise of ‘multimodality’ metronomic chemotherapy revealed by preclinical studies of metastatic disease. Cancer Lett. 2017;400:293–304.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Emmenegger U, Shaked Y, Man S, et al. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic study of chronic low-dose metronomic cyclophosphamide therapy in mice. Mol Cancer Ther. 2007;6:2280–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chen A, Chen L, Al-Qaisi A, et al. Everolimus-induced hematologic changes in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2015;15:48–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cerrito MG, De Giorgi M, Pelizzoni D, et al. Metronomic combination of vinorelbine and 5fluorouracil is able to inhibit triple-negative breast cancer cells. Results from the proof-of-concept VICTOR-0 study. Oncotarget. 2018;9:27448–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Man S, Bocci G, Francia G, et al. Antitumor effects in mice of low-dose (metronomic) cyclophosphamide administered continuously through the drinking water. Cancer Res. 2002;62:2731–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Natale G, Bocci G. Does metronomic chemotherapy induce tumor angiogenic dormancy? A review of available preclinical and clinical data. Cancer Lett. 2018;432:28–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Awwad M, North RJ. Cyclophosphamide-induced immunologically mediated regression of a cyclophosphamide-resistant murine tumor: a consequence of eliminating precursor L3T4+ suppressor T-cells. Cancer Res. 1989;49:1649–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Berd D, Mastrangelo MJ. Effect of low dose cyclophosphamide on the immune system of cancer patients: reduction of T-suppressor function without depletion of the CD8+ subset. Cancer Res. 1987;47:3317–21.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Ghiringhelli F, Menard C, Puig PE, et al. Metronomic cyclophosphamide regimen selectively depletes CD4+ CD25+ regulatory T cells and restores T and NK effector functions in end stage cancer patients. Cancer Immunol Immunother. 2007;56:641–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Scurr M, Pembroke T, Bloom A, et al. Effect of modified vaccinia ankara-5T4 and low-dose cyclophosphamide on antitumor immunity in metastatic colorectal cancer: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA Oncol. 2017;3:e172579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lien K, Georgsdottir S, Sivanathan L, Chan K, Emmenegger U. Low-dose metronomic chemotherapy: a systematic literature analysis. Eur J Cancer. 2013;49:3387–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Romiti A, Falcone R, Roberto M, Marchetti P. Current achievements and future perspectives of metronomic chemotherapy. Invest New Drugs. 2017;35:359–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bottini A, Generali D, Brizzi MP, et al. Randomized phase II trial of letrozole and letrozole plus low-dose metronomic oral cyclophosphamide as primary systemic treatment in elderly breast cancer patients. J Clin Oncol. 2006;24:3623–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Licchetta A, Correale P, Migali C, et al. Oral metronomic chemo-hormonal-therapy of metastatic breast cancer with cyclophosphamide and megestrol acetate. J Chemother. 2010;22:201–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Schwartzberg LS, Wang G, Somer BG, et al. Phase II trial of fulvestrant with metronomic capecitabine for postmenopausal women with hormone receptor-positive, HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2014;14:13–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Addeo R, Sgambato A, Cennamo G, et al. Low-dose metronomic oral administration of vinorelbine in the first-line treatment of elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer. Clin Breast Cancer. 2010;10:301–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    De Iuliis F, Salerno G, Taglieri L, Lanza R, Scarpa S. On and off metronomic oral vinorelbine in elderly women with advanced breast cancer. Tumori. 2015;101:30–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Stockler MR, Harvey VJ, Francis PA, et al. Capecitabine versus classical cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil as first-line chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2011;29:4498–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Taguchi T, Nakayama T, Masuda N, et al. Study of low-dose capecitabine monotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Chemotherapy. 2010;56:166–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Fedele P, Marino A, Orlando L, et al. Efficacy and safety of low-dose metronomic chemotherapy with capecitabine in heavily pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer. Eur J Cancer. 2012;48:24–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Colleoni M, Rocca A, Sandri MT, et al. Low-dose oral methotrexate and cyclophosphamide in metastatic breast cancer: antitumor activity and correlation with vascular endothelial growth factor levels. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:73–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Wang Z, Lu J, Leaw S, et al. An all-oral combination of metronomic cyclophosphamide plus capecitabine in patients with anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated metastatic breast cancer: a phase II study. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2012;69:515–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Cazzaniga ME, Cortesi L, Ferzi A, et al. Metronomic chemotherapy with oral vinorelbine (mVNR) and capecitabine (mCAPE) in advanced HER2-negative breast cancer patients: is it a way to optimize disease control? Final results of the VICTOR-2 study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2016;160:501–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Cazzaniga ME, Torri V, Villa F, et al. Efficacy and safety of the all-oral schedule of metronomic vinorelbine and capecitabine in locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer patients: the phase I–II VICTOR-1 study. Int J Breast Cancer. 2014;2014:769790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Montagna E, Vingiani A, Maisonneuve P, et al. Unfavorable prognostic role of tumor-infiltrating lymphocytes in hormone-receptor positive, HER2 negative metastatic breast cancer treated with metronomic chemotherapy. Breast. 2017;34:83–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Addeo R, Sperlongano P, Montella L, et al. Protracted low dose of oral vinorelbine and temozolomide with whole-brain radiotherapy in the treatment for breast cancer patients with brain metastases. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2012;70:603–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Yoshimoto M, Takao S, Hirata M, et al. Metronomic oral combination chemotherapy with capecitabine and cyclophosphamide: a phase II study in patients with HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2012;70:331–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Carrington C. Oral targeted therapy for cancer. Aust Prescr. 2015;38:171–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Shaked Y, Pham E, Hariharan S, Magidey K, Beyar-Katz O, Xu P, et al. Evidence implicating immunological host effects in the efficacy of metronomic low-dose chemotherapy. Cancer Res. 2016;76:5983–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Collova E, Sebastiani F, De Matteis E, Generali D, Aurilio G, Boccardo F, et al. Use of metronomic chemotherapy in oncology: results from a national Italian survey. Tumori. 2011;97:454–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Montagna E, Palazzo A, Maisonneuve P, et al. Safety and efficacy study of metronomic vinorelbine, cyclophosphamide plus capecitabine in metastatic breast cancer: a phase II trial. Cancer Lett. 2017;400:276–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Hammond ME, Hayes DF, Dowsett M, et al. American Society of Clinical Oncology/College of American Pathologists guideline recommendations for immunohistochemical testing of estrogen and progesterone receptors in breast cancer (unabridged version). Arch Pathol Lab Med. 2010;134:e48–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Onitilo AA, Engel JM, Greenlee RT, Mukesh BN. Breast cancer subtypes based on ER/PR and Her2 expression: comparison of clinicopathologic features and survival. Clin Med Res. 2009;7:4–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Munzone E, Colleoni M. Clinical overview of metronomic chemotherapy in breast cancer. Nat Rev Clin Oncol. 2015;12:631–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Andre N, Banavali S, Snihur Y, Pasquier E. Has the time come for metronomics in low-income and middle-income countries? Lancet Oncol. 2013;14:e239–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Kassam F, Enright K, Dent R, et al. Survival outcomes for patients with metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: implications for clinical practice and trial design. Clin Breast Cancer. 2009;9:29–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Turner N, Zafarana E, Sanna G, Mottino G, Biganzoli L. The best treatment for older patients with breast cancer. EJC Suppl. 2013;11:299–300.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Di Desidero T, Kerbel RS, Bocci G. Metronomic chemotherapy for triple negative breast cancer? Aging (Albany NY). 2016;8:573–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Cazzaniga ME, Cortesi L, Ferzi A, et al. Metronomic chemotherapy in triple-negative metastatic breast cancer: the future is now? Int J Breast Cancer. 2017;2017:1683060.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Cecconetto L, Casadei Gardini A, Tenti E, et al. Long-term complete response in a patient with liver metastases from breast cancer treated with metronomic chemotherapy. Tumori. 2014;100:e79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    De Iuliis F, Salerno G, Taglieri L, Vicinanza R, Lanza R, Scarpa S. Elderly woman with triple-negative metastatic breast cancer successfully treated with metronomic capecitabine. Anticancer Res. 2014;34:4287–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Kummar S, Wade JL, Oza AM, et al. Randomized phase II trial of cyclophosphamide and the oral poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase inhibitor veliparib in patients with recurrent, advanced triple-negative breast cancer. Invest New Drugs. 2016;34:355–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Perry S, Kowalski TL, Chang CH. Quality of life assessment in women with breast cancer: benefits, acceptability and utilization. Health Qual Life Outcomes. 2007;5:24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Wildiers H. Mastering chemotherapy dose reduction in elderly cancer patients. Eur J Cancer. 2007;43:2235–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Cazzaniga ME, Torri V, Riva F, et al. Efficacy and safety of vinorelbine-capecitabine oral metronomic combination in elderly metastatic breast cancer patients: vICTOR-1 study. Tumori. 2017;103:e4–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Perroud HA, Alasino CM, Rico MJ, et al. Quality of life in patients with metastatic breast cancer treated with metronomic chemotherapy. Future Oncol. 2016;12:1233–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Di Desidero T, Orlandi P, Fioravanti A, et al. Pharmacokinetic analysis of metronomic capecitabine in refractory metastatic colorectal cancer patients. Invest New Drugs. 2018;36:709–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Carrick S, Parker S, Thornton CE, Ghersi D, Simes J, Wilcken N. Single agent versus combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2009:CD003372.Google Scholar
  58. 58.
    Biziota E, Briasoulis E, Mavroeidis L, Marselos M, Harris AL, Pappas P. Cellular and molecular effects of metronomic vinorelbine and 4-O-deacetylvinorelbine on human umbilical vein endothelial cells. Anticancer Drugs. 2016;27:216–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Langley RE, Carmichael J, Jones AL, et al. Phase III trial of epirubicin plus paclitaxel compared with epirubicin plus cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: United Kingdom National Cancer Research Institute trial AB01. J Clin Oncol. 2005;23:8322–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Miller K, Wang M, Gralow J, et al. Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med. 2007;357:2666–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    O’Shaughnessy J, Miles D, Vukelja S, 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Nolè F, Crivellari D, Mattioli R, et al. Phase II study of an all-oral combination of vinorelbine with capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2009;64:673–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Hassan M, Osman MM. Combination of oral vinorelbine and capecitabine in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer patients previously exposed to anthracyclines: a pilot study. Hematol Oncol Stem Cell Ther. 2010;3:185–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Tubiana-Mathieu N, Bougnoux P, Becquart D, et al. All-oral combination of oral vinorelbine and capecitabine as first-line chemotherapy in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: an international phase II trial. Br J Cancer. 2009;101:232–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Healthcare Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.ASST MonzaMonzaItaly
  2. 2.IEO, European Institute of Oncology IRCCSMilanItaly
  3. 3.Department of Clinical and Experimental MedicineUniversity of PisaPisaItaly
  4. 4.Centro Hospitalar do PortoPortoPortugal
  5. 5.Vall d’Hebron University Hospital, Vall d’Hebron Institute of OncologyBarcelonaSpain
  6. 6.Department of OncologyAarhus University HospitalAarhusDenmark
  7. 7.University of GrazGrazAustria
  8. 8.Centre Paul Strauss, Institut Régional du CancerStrasbourgFrance
  9. 9.Oncology Department, Complejo Hospitalario de JaenJaenSpain
  10. 10.Jagiellonian University, Medical College HospitalCracowPoland
  11. 11.IRCCS Mario Negri Institute for Pharmacological ResearchMilanItaly

Personalised recommendations