Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Analysis of overall survival from a phase III study of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes

  • Clinical trial
  • Published:
Breast Cancer Research and Treatment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Limited proven treatment options exist for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistant to anthracycline and taxane treatment. Ixabepilone, a novel semisynthetic analog of epothilone B, has demonstrated single-agent activity in MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes. In combination with capecitabine in a phase III trial (CA163-046) in this setting, ixabepilone prolonged progression-free survival and increased objective response rate relative to capecitabine (Thomas et al. J Clin Oncol 25:5210–5217, 2007). Here, we report the results of overall survival (OS), a secondary efficacy endpoint from the CA163-046 trial. Seven hundred fifty-two patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes were randomized to ixabepilone (40 mg/m2 intravenously on day 1 of a 21-day cycle) plus capecitabine (2,000 mg/m2 orally on days 1 through 14 of a 21-day cycle) or capecitabine alone (2,500 mg/m2 on the same schedule). Patients receiving ixabepilone plus capecitabine treatment had a median survival of 12.9 months compared to 11.1 months for patients receiving capecitabine alone (HR = 0.9; 95%CI: 077–1.05; P = 0.19). This observed increase in median OS favored the combination; however, the difference was not statistically significant. Predefined subset analyses showed a clinically meaningful increase in OS in KPS 70–80 patients receiving ixabepilone plus capecitabine (HR = 0.75; 95% CI: 0.58–0.98). Ixabepilone plus capecitabine did not show a significant improvement in survival compared to capecitabine alone in patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes. The observed differences in survival favored the combination arm. A clinical benefit was also seen in patients in the KPS 70–80 subgroup (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT000080301).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Ries LAG, Melbert D, Krapcho M et al (2008) Surveillance epidemiology and end results. Available at http://seer.cancer.gov/csr/1975_2005/results_single/sect_01_table.01.pdf. Posted on SEERS website 2008

  2. Henderson IC, Berry DA, Demetri GD et al (2003) Improved outcomes from adding sequential Paclitaxel but not from escalating doxorubicin dose in an adjuvant chemotherapy regimen for patients with node-positive primary breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:976–983

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Mamounas EP, Bryant J, Lembersky B et al (2005) Paclitaxel after doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide as adjuvant chemotherapy for node-positive breast cancer: results from NSABP B-28. J Clin Oncol 23:3686–3696

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Martin M, Pienkowski T, Mackey J et al (2005) Adjuvant docetaxel for node-positive breast cancer. N Engl J Med 352:2302–2313

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Bonneterre J, Dieras V, Tubiana-Hulin M et al (2004) Phase II multicentre randomised study of docetaxel plus epirubicin vs 5-fluorouracil plus epirubicin and cyclophosphamide in metastatic breast cancer. Br J Cancer 91:1466–1471

    CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  6. Bontenbal M, Creemers GJ, Braun HJ et al (2005) Phase II to III study comparing doxorubicin and docetaxel with fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: results of a Dutch Community Setting Trial for the Clinical Trial Group of the Comprehensive Cancer Centre. J Clin Oncol 23:7081–7088

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Jassem J, Pienkowski T, Pluzanska A et al (2001) Doxorubicin and paclitaxel versus fluorouracil, doxorubicin, and cyclophosphamide as first-line therapy for women with metastatic breast cancer: final results of a randomized phase III multicenter trial. J Clin Oncol 19:1707–1715

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Nabholtz JM, Falkson C, Campos D (2003) Docetaxel and doxorubicin compared with doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: results of a randomized, multicenter, phase III trial. J Clin Oncol 21:968–975

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Longley DB, Johnston PG (2005) Molecular mechanisms of drug resistance. J Pathol 205:275–292

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Valero V, Hortobagyi GN (2003) Are anthracycline-taxane regimens the new standard of care in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer? J Clin Oncol 21:959–962

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Cardoso F, Di LA, Lohrisch C et al (2002) Second and subsequent lines of chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: what did we learn in the last two decades? Ann Oncol 13:197–207

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Bernard-Marty C, Cardoso F, Piccart MJ (2004) Facts and controversies in systemic treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Oncologist 9:617–632

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Lee JJ, Swain SM (2005) Development of novel chemotherapeutic agents to evade the mechanisms of multidrug resistance (MDR). Semin Oncol 32:S22–S26

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Lee FY, Shen H, Lee H et al (2008) Ixabepilone overcomes multiple mechanisms of drug resistance including overexpression of class III ß tubulin and breast cancer resistance protein. Eur J Cancer 6:219 (abstr)

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Lee FYF, Camuso A, Castenada S et al (2006) Preclinical studies of ixabepilone (BMS-247550) demonstrate optimal anti-tumor activity against both chemotherapy sensitive and resistant tumor types. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 47 (abstr)

  16. 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 27:526–534

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. 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 8:234–241

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Low JA, Wedam SB, Lee JJ et al (2005) Phase II clinical trial of ixabepilone (BMS-247550), an epothilone B analog, in metastatic and locally advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:2726–2734

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Perez EA, Lerzo G, Pivot X et al (2007) Efficacy and safety of ixabepilone (BMS-247550) in a phase II study of patients with advanced breast cancer resistant to an anthracycline, a taxane, and capecitabine. J Clin Oncol 25:3407–3414

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Roche H, Yelle L, Cognetti F et al (2007) Phase II clinical trial of ixabepilone (BMS-247550), an epothilone B analog, as first-line therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracycline chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 25:3415–3420

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Thomas E, Tabernero J, Fornier M et al (2007) Phase II clinical trial of ixabepilone (BMS-247550), an epothilone B analog, in patients with taxane-resistant metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:3399–3406

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. 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 25:5210–5217

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Thomas ES (2008) Ixabepilone plus capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer progressing after anthracycline, taxane treatment. J Clin Oncol 26:2223

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Blum JL, Jones SE, Buzdar AU et al (1999) Multicenter phase II study of capecitabine in paclitaxel-refractory metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 17:485–493

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Oshaughnessy JA, Blum J, Moiseyenko V et al (2001) Randomized, open-label, phase II trial of oral capecitabine (Xeloda) vs. a reference arm of intravenous CMF (cyclophosphamide, methotrexate and 5-fluorouracil) as first-line therapy for advanced/metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 12:1247–1254

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Hortobagyi GN, Perez E, Vrdoljak E, Medina C, Xu B, Conte P, Roche H, Peck R, Poulart V, Sparano JA (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: The 2008 Breast Cancer Symposium—integrating emerging science into clinical practice, September 5–7, 2008, Washington, D.C., p 178 (abst 186), (Poster presentation)

  27. Cameron D, Casey M, Press M et al (2008) A phase III randomized comparison of lapatinib plus capecitabine versus capecitabine alone in women with advanced breast cancer that has progressed on trastuzumab: updated efficacy and biomarker analyses. Breast Cancer Res Treat 112:533–543

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Geyer CE, Forster J, Lindquist D et al (2006) Lapatinib plus capecitabine for HER2-positive advanced breast cancer. N Engl J Med 355:2733–2743

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Martin M, Ruiz A, Munoz M et al (2007) Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes: final results of the phase III Spanish Breast Cancer Research Group (GEICAM) trial. Lancet Oncol 8:219–225

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Miller KD, Chap LI, Holmes FA et al (2005) Randomized phase III trial of capecitabine compared with bevacizumab plus capecitabine in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 23:792–799

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Sargent DJ, Hayes DF (2008) Assessing the measure of a new drug: is survival the only thing that matters? J Clin Oncol 26:1922–1923

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Petrelli F, Cabiddu M, Cazzaniga ME et al (2008) Targeted therapies for the treatment of breast cancer in the post-trastuzumab era. Oncologist 13:373–381

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Piccart-Gebhart MJ, Burzykowski T, Buyse M (2008) Taxanes alone or in combination with anthracyclines as first-line therapy of patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:1980–1986

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Giordano SH, Buzdar AU, Smith TL et al (2004) Is breast cancer survival improving? Cancer 100:44–52

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Jemal A, Siegel R, Ward E et al (2008) Cancer statistics, 2008. CA Cancer J Clin 58:71–96

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Lekberg TG, Rutqvist LE et al (2003) Markedly improved survival in patients with systemic metastatic breast cancer during a twenty year period—population based registry data from the Stockholm health care region. Breast Cancer Res Treat 82(Suppl 1) (abstr)

  37. Amar S, Roy V, Perez EA (2008) Treatment of metastatic breast cancer: looking towards the future. Breast Cancer Res Treat

  38. Carrick S, Parker S, Thornton CE et al (2009) Single agent versus combination chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev CD003372

  39. Muss HB, Case LD, Richards F et al (1991) Interrupted versus continuous chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer. The Piedmont Oncology Association. N Engl J Med 325:1342–1348

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Coates A, Gebski V, Bishop JF et al (1987) Improving the quality of life during chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. A comparison of intermittent and continuous treatment strategies. N Engl J Med 317:1490–1495

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  41. Pazdur R (2008) Endpoints for assessing drug activity in clinical trials. Oncologist 13(Suppl 2):19–21

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Chia SK, Speers CH, D’yachkova Y et al (2007) The impact of new chemotherapeutic and hormone agents on survival in a population-based cohort of women with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer 110:973–979

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Miller K, Wang M, Gralow J et al (2007) Paclitaxel plus bevacizumab versus paclitaxel alone for metastatic breast cancer. N Engl J Med 357:2666–2676

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

CA163-046 was funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors wish to thank the patients and all the investigators who participated in the study. Professional medical writing and editorial assistance provided by Ananya Bhattacharya, employee of Bristol-Myers Squibb. The authors vouch for the completeness and accuracy of results presented.

Conflict of interest statement

GH has served as a consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb and Novartis and has a commercial research grant from Novartis; LF has served as a consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb; VC has received honoraria from Eli Lilly and Novartis and has served as a consultant for Astra Zeneca; JJ has served as a consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb and Glaxo SmithKleine; XP has received honoraria from Roche, Glaxo SmithKleine, and Novartis, has served as a consultant for Roche and has received commercial research support from Roche; LV has received honoraria from Bristol-Myers Squibb, commercial research grant from Bristol-Myers Squibb, Curagen, Imclone, and Glaxo SmithKleine, and has served as a consultant for Bristol-Myers Squibb, Bayer, and Onyx; HG, RKL, HCC GL, FM BX, and HR have no financial relationships to disclose; RP and PM are employees of Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Breast Medical Oncology, The University of Texas M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, 1515 Holcombe Blvd., Unit 1354, Houston, TX, 77030-4009, USA

    Gabriel N. Hortobagyi

  2. The Instituto Nacional de Enfermedades Neoplasicas, Lima, Peru

    Henry L. Gomez

  3. The St. Luke’s Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines

    Rubi K. Li

  4. The Yonsei Cancer Center, Seoul, Republic of Korea

    Hyun-Cheol Chung

  5. The Centro de Oncologia Rosario, Santa Fe, Argentina

    Luis E. Fein

  6. The Veterans Memorial Medical Center, Quezon City, Philippines

    Valorie F. Chan

  7. The Medical University of Gdansk, Gdansk, Poland

    Jacek Jassem

  8. The Hospital de Oncologia ‘Maria Curie’, Buenos Aires, Argentina

    Guillermo L. Lerzo

  9. University Hospital of Besançon, Inserm, France

    Xavier B. Pivot

  10. The Hospital Nacional Edgardo Rebagliati Martins, Lima, Peru

    Fernando Hurtado de Mendoza

  11. The Cancer Hospital—Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, Beijing, China

    Binghe Xu

  12. The Weill Medical College of Cornell University, New York, NY, USA

    Linda T. Vahdat

  13. Research and Development, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Wallingford, CT, USA

    Ronald A. Peck & Pralay Mukhopadhyay

  14. The Institut Claudius Regaud, Toulouse, France

    Henri H. Roché

Authors
  1. Gabriel N. Hortobagyi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Henry L. Gomez
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Rubi K. Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Hyun-Cheol Chung
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Luis E. Fein
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Valorie F. Chan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Jacek Jassem
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Guillermo L. Lerzo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Xavier B. Pivot
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Fernando Hurtado de Mendoza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Binghe Xu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Linda T. Vahdat
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Ronald A. Peck
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Pralay Mukhopadhyay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Henri H. Roché
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Gabriel N. Hortobagyi.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Hortobagyi, G.N., Gomez, H.L., Li, R.K. et al. Analysis of overall survival from a phase III study of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with MBC resistant to anthracyclines and taxanes. Breast Cancer Res Treat 122, 409–418 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-0901-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-010-0901-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation