Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Efficacy of different dosing schedules of capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer: a single-institution experience

  • Short Report
  • Published:
Investigational New Drugs Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

Purpose Capecitabine is widely used as a single agent on a 21-day cycle in the management of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Our primary objective was to compare the standard dosing of capecitabine (Arm A: days 1–14 on 21-day cycle) to biweekly dosing (Arm B: days 1–7 and 15–21 on 28-day cycle) using retrospective data analysis. Methods 166 patients with MBC treated with single agent capecitabine at The Ohio State University from 2002 to 2014 were considered eligible. Median time to treatment failure (TTF) and overall survival (OS) were estimated using Kaplan-Meier (KM) methods. KM curves were compared using log-rank tests with Holm’s correction for multiplicity. Results Patients were grouped by dose schedule into one of three arms: Arm A (21-day cycle; capecitabine given at 1000 mg/m2 orally, twice daily on days 1–14 of 21-day cycle); Arm B (28-day cycle; capecitabine given at 1000 mg/m2 orally, twice daily on days 1–7 and 15–21 of 28-day cycle); and Arm C (changeover regimen where patients started on the 21-day cycle, but changed to a 28-day cycle for tolerability). No difference was found in TTF or OS for patients with MBC between those who received capecitabine on either standard dosing (Arm A) and those on a biweekly cycle (Arm B or C). Overall, 41% of patients required dose reduction. Conclusions Our single institution experience showed that alternate dosing of capecitabine (biweekly, 28-day cycle) may be a reasonable alternative to standard 21-day cycle with similar efficacy and fewer dose reductions.

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

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

References

  1. Noone AM, Howlader N, Krapcho M et al (2018) SEER Cancer statistics review, 1975–2015. National Cancer Institute, Bethesda

    Google Scholar 

  2. Mayer EL, Burstein HJ (2007) Chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Hematol Oncol Clin North Am 21:257–272. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hoc.2007.03.001

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Genetech USA Inc (2016) Xeloda [package insert]

  4. Schellens JHM (2007) Capecitabine. Oncologist 12:152–155. https://doi.org/10.1634/theoncologist.12-2-152

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Fumoleau P, Largillier R, Clippe C et al (2004) Multicentre, phase II study evaluating capecitabine monotherapy in patients with anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated metastatic breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 40:536–542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejca.2003.11.007

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Reichardt P, Von Minckwitz G, Thuss-Patience PC, et al (2003) Multicenter phase II study of oral capecitabine (Xeloda(")) in patients with metastatic breast cancer relapsing after treatment with a taxane-containing therapy. Ann Oncol 14:1227–1233. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdg346

  7. 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  Google Scholar 

  8. Bajetta E, Procopio G, Celio L et al (2005) Safety and efficacy of two different doses of capecitabine in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in older women. J Clin Oncol 23:2155–2161. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2005.02.167

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. 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. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.12.6557

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. 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. https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa064320

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Bartsch R, Wenzel C, Altorjai G et al (2007) Capecitabine and trastuzumab in heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 25:3853–3858. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.11.9776

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Scheithauer W, Kornek GV, Raderer M et al (2003) Randomized multicenter phase II trial of two different schedules of capecitabine plus oxaliplatin as first-line treatment in advanced colorectal cancer. J Clin Oncol 21:1307–1312. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2003.09.016

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Traina TA, Theodoulou M, Feigin K et al (2008) Phase I study of a novel capecitabine schedule based on the Norton-Simon mathematical model in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 26:1797–1802. https://doi.org/10.1200/JCO.2007.13.8388

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Gajria D, Feigin K, Tan LK et al (2011) Phase 2 trial of a novel capecitabine dosing schedule in combination with bevacizumab for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Cancer 117:4125–4131. https://doi.org/10.1002/cncr.25992

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hennessy BT, Gauthier AM, Michaud LB et al (2005) Lower dose capecitabine has a more favorable therapeutic index in metastatic breast cancer: retrospective analysis of patients treated at M. D. Anderson Cancer center and a review of capecitabine toxicity in the literature. Ann Oncol 16:1289–1296. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdi253

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Zielinski C, Gralow J, Martin M (2010) Optimising the dose of capecitabine in metastatic breast cancer: confused, clarified or confirmed? Ann Oncol 21:2145–2152. https://doi.org/10.1093/annonc/mdq069

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Nishijima TF, Suzuki M, Muss HB (2016) A comparison of toxicity profiles between the lower and standard dose capecitabine in breast cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Breast Cancer Res Treat 156:227–236. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10549-016-3756-5

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  18. Traina TA, Dugan U, Higgins B et al (2010) Optimizing chemotherapy dose and schedule by Norton-Simon mathematical modeling. Breast Dis 31:7–18. https://doi.org/10.3233/BD-2009-0290

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. Cadoo KA, Gajria D, Suh E et al (2016) Decreased gastrointestinal toxicity associated with a novel capecitabine schedule (7 days on and 7 days off): a systematic review. NPJ Breast Cancer 2:16006. https://doi.org/10.1038/npjbcancer.2016.6

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The project described was supported by the Stefanie Spielman Fund for Breast Cancer Research, the Award Number Grant UL1TR002733 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute and Cancer Clinical Investigator Team Leadership Award P30CA016058-42S2. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences or the National Institutes of Health.

Funding

The project described was supported by the Stefanie Spielman Fund for Breast Cancer Research, the Award Number Grant UL1TR002733 from the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences, and the National Cancer Institute and Cancer Clinical Investigator Team Leadership Award P30CA016058-42S2. The content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Center for Advancing Translational Sciences or the National Institutes of Health.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Stefanie Spielman Comprehensive Breast Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Anupama Suresh, Akannsha Ganju, Evan Morgan, Joseph Liu, Michael Berger, Craig Vargo, Anne Noonan, Raquel Reinbolt, Mathew Cherian, Jeffrey VanDeusen, Sagar Sardesai, Robert Wesolowski, Daniel G. Stover, Maryam Lustberg, Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy & Nicole Williams

  2. Division of Medical Oncology, Comprehensive Cancer Center, The Ohio State University Medical Center, Columbus, OH, USA

    Anupama Suresh, Akannsha Ganju, Evan Morgan, Joseph Liu, Anne Noonan, Raquel Reinbolt, Mathew Cherian, Jeffrey VanDeusen, Sagar Sardesai, Robert Wesolowski, Daniel G. Stover, Maryam Lustberg, Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy & Nicole Williams

  3. Department of Biomedical Informatics, Center for Biostatistics, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Marilly Palettas & Julie A. Stephens

  4. Pharmacy Department, Stefanie Spielman Comprehensive Breast Center, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, USA

    Michael Berger & Craig Vargo

  5. Division of Medical Oncology, The Ohio State University Wexner Medical Center, 1202A Lincoln Tower, 1800 Cannon Drive, Columbus, OH, 43210, USA

    Nicole Williams

Authors
  1. Anupama Suresh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Akannsha Ganju
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Evan Morgan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Marilly Palettas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Julie A. Stephens
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Joseph Liu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Michael Berger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Craig Vargo
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Anne Noonan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Raquel Reinbolt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Mathew Cherian
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. Jeffrey VanDeusen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Sagar Sardesai
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  14. Robert Wesolowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  15. Daniel G. Stover
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  16. Maryam Lustberg
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  17. Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  18. Nicole Williams
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection and analysis were performed by Anupama Suresh, Akannsha Ganju, Evan Morgan, Marilly Palettas, Julie A. Stephens, Joseph Liu, Michael Berger, Craig Vargo, Bhuvaneswari Ramaswamy and Nicole Williams. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Anupama Suresh and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Nicole Williams.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the Ohio State University Comprehensive Cancer Center (OSUCCC) Clinical Scientific Review Committee (CSRC), the Ohio State Cancer Institutional Review Board (OSU IRB 2015C0155), and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments.

Informed consent

The Ohio State Cancer Institutional Review Board (OSU IRB 2015C0155) approved the full waiver of the informed consent process due to the retrospective nature of the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Suresh, A., Ganju, A., Morgan, E. et al. Efficacy of different dosing schedules of capecitabine for metastatic breast cancer: a single-institution experience. Invest New Drugs 38, 1605–1611 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-020-00891-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10637-020-00891-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation