Background:An increasing proportion of patients are exposed to anthracyclines and/or taxanes in the adjuvant or neoadjuvant setting. Re-exposure in the metastatic stage is limited by drug resistance, thus evaluation of non-cross-resistant regimens is mandatory.Methods:Anthracycline-pretreated patients were randomly assigned to three gemcitabine-based regimens. Chemotherapy consisted of gemcitabine 1.000 mg m−2 plus vinorelbin 25 mg m−2 on days 1+8 (GemVin), or plus cisplatin 30 mg m−2 on days 1+8 (GemCis), or plus capecitabine 650 mg m−2 b.i.d. orally days 1–14 (GemCap), q3w. The primary end point was response rate.Results:A total of 141 patients were recruited on the trial. The overall response rates were 39.0% (GemVin), 47.7% (GemCis) and 34.7% (GemCap). Median progression-free survival was estimated with 5.7, 6.9 and 8.3 months, respectively. Corresponding median survival times were 17.5 (GemVin), 13.0 (GemCis) and 19.4 months (GemCap). Neutropenia ⩾grade 3 occurred in 16.7% (Gem/Vin), 4.4% (GemCis) and 0% (Gem/Cap), whereas non-haematological toxicities were rarely severe except grade 3 hand–foot syndrome in 2.0% of the GemCap patients (per patient analysis).Conclusions:This randomised phase II trial has revealed comparable results for three gemcitabine-based regimens regarding treatment efficacy and toxicity. Gemcitabine-based chemotherapy appears to be a worthwhile treatment option for pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer.
Recent epidemiological studies suggest that chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) has not contributed to a marked improvement in the patient outcome during the last decades. Randomized trials that investigated the efficacy of a first-line schedule for MBC, observed a median survival of 18-24 months. This study aimed to analyze patients with MBC who have been treated in a single university outpatient clinic for survival. Patients with MBC who had received their complete anticancer treatment in our outpatient clinic between 2000 and 2005 were analyzed for treatment schedules and survival. A total of 232 patients [median age, 53 years; range, 27-87 years; estrogen receptor and/or progesterone-positive hormone receptor, n=174 (75%); human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 overexpression (human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 positive), n=79 (34%)] were included in this analysis, of which 43.7% of hormone receptor-positive patients received 1-2, 28.3% received 3-4, and 1.7% received more than four hormonal regimens. In addition, 53.4% of all patients received up to three chemotherapeutic agents in palliative intent, whereas four to six regimens were applied in 22.1, and 12.9% received more than six subsequent regimens. An increased number of regimens were associated with an improvement in survival. The median overall survival was 44 months (95% confidence interval: 39-49). HR positivity, bone only, or single-site metastases were associated with an improved survival. An improved survival was also shown in patients who underwent locoregional procedures for oligometastatic disease (n=31; median overall survival >50 months), whereas triple-negative breast cancer was related to worse outcome (16 months; 95% confidence interval: 7-25). These data collected from a selective patient population of a single center support the hypothesis that the sequential use of all treatment modalities for MBC to its full potential may result in an increased survival. Whether innovative medicine, a step-by-step escalation of all treatment modalities according to standard guidelines and individualized clinical requirements, and a multidisciplinary treatment approach contribute to these good outcomes is debatable.
A 77 year-old man suffering from adominal pain and urinary retention with a long history of a multiple myeloma was admitted to the emergency room. The previous clinical course during various chemotherapies was affected by several serious infections. Surprisingly, the diagnostic investigation including ultrasound and computed tomography showed an acute appendicitis.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.