Advertisement

Eribulin in Recurrent/Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC)

  • Taha Sethjiwala
  • Manikandan DhanushkodiEmail author
  • Venkatraman Radhakrishnan
  • Jayachandran Perumal Kalaiarasi
  • Nikita Mehra
  • Archit Joshi
  • Arun Kumar Rajan
  • Gangothri Selvarajan
  • Balasubramanian Ananthi
  • Priya Iyer
  • Geetha Senguttuvan
  • Bharathi Srilatha
  • Arvind Krishnamurthy
  • Sridevi Velusamy
  • Selvaluxmy Ganesarajah
  • Trivadi S. Ganesan
  • Tenali Gnana Sagar
Original Article
  • 12 Downloads

Abstract

Introduction

There is no standard chemotherapy for patients with MBC who progress after exposure to anthracycline and taxane. We conducted this study to assess the outcome of patients who were treated with eribulin.

Methods

This was a retrospective study of patients with MBC who were treated with eribulin from December 2016 to March 2018 in Cancer Institute, Chennai.

Results

Twelve patients with MBC previously exposed to both anthracycline and taxane, who received eribulin, were included in this analysis. The overall response rate was 33%. With a median follow-up of 26 months, the median PFS and median OS were 3.5 months and 13.5 months, respectively. Grade 3 neuropathy occurred in 16% of patients.

Conclusion

Eribulin is an option in heavily pre-treated MBC considering the promising long-term outcome. Patients with pre-existing neuropathy should not be considered for eribulin.

Keywords

Eribulin Metastatic breast cancer India 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. 1.
    Bray F, Ferlay J, Soerjomataram I, Siegel RL, Torre LA, Jemal A. Global cancer statistics 2018: GLOBOCAN estimates of incidence and mortality worldwide for 36 cancers in 185 countries. CA Cancer J Clin. 2018;68(6):394–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    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;15(2):CD003372.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gilabert M, Bertucci F, Esterni B, Madroszyk A, Tarpin C, Jacquemier J, et al. Capecitabine after anthracycline and taxane exposure in HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer patients: response, survival and prognostic factors. Anticancer Res. 2011;31(3):1079–86.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Zelek L, Barthier S, Riofrio M, Fizazi K, Rixe O, Delord JP, et al. Weekly vinorelbine is an effective palliative regimen after failure with anthracyclines and taxanes in metastatic breast carcinoma. Cancer. 2001;92(9):2267–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Sparano JA, Vrdoljak E, Rixe O, Xu B, Manikhas A, Medina C, et al. Randomized phase III trial of ixabepilone plus capecitabine versus capecitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol. 2010;28(20):3256–63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shetty N, Gupta S. Eribulin drug review. South Asian J Cancer. 2014;3(1):57–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smith JA, Wilson L, Azarenko O, Zhu X, Lewis BM, Littlefield BA, et al. Eribulin binds at microtubule ends to a single site on tubulin to suppress dynamic instability. Biochem (Mosc). 2010;49(6):1331–7.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Cortes J, O’Shaughnessy J, Loesch D, Blum JL, Vahdat LT, Petrakova K, et al. Eribulin monotherapy versus treatment of physician’s choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer (EMBRACE): a phase 3 open-label randomised study. The Lancet. 2011;377:914–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vahdat LT, Thomas E, Li R, Jassem J, Gomez H, Chung H, et al. Phase III trial of ixabepilone plus capecitabine compared to capecitabine alone in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) previously treated or resistant to an anthracycline and resistant to taxanes. J Clin Oncol. 2007;25(18_suppl):1006.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Harbeck N, Saupe S, Jäger E, Schmidt M, Kreienberg R, Müller L, et al. A randomized phase III study evaluating pegylated liposomal doxorubicin versus capecitabine as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer: results of the PELICAN study. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2017;161(1):63–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Pallis AG, Boukovinas I, Ardavanis A, Varthalitis I, Malamos N, Georgoulias V, et al. A multicenter randomized phase III trial of vinorelbine/gemcitabine doublet versus capecitabine monotherapy in anthracycline- and taxane-pretreated women with metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol. 2012;23(5):1164–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Crown JP, Diéras V, Staroslawska E, Yardley DA, Bachelot T, Davidson N, et al. Phase III trial of sunitinib in combination with capecitabine versus capecitabine monotherapy for the treatment of patients with pretreated metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 2013;31(23):2870–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Cortes J, O’Shaughnessy J, Loesch D, Blum JL, Vahdat LT, Petrakova K, et al. Eribulin monotherapy versus treatment of physician’s choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer (EMBRACE): a phase 3 open-label randomised study. Lancet Lond Engl. 2011;377(9769):914–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Yuan P, Hu X, Sun T, Li W, Zhang Q, Cui S, et al. Eribulin mesilate versus vinorelbine in women with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer: a randomised clinical trial. Eur J Cancer Oxf Engl. 1990;2019(112):57–65.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kaufman PA, Awada A, Twelves C, Yelle L, Perez EA, Velikova G, et al. Phase III open-label randomized study of eribulin mesylate versus capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol. 2015;33(6):594–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Cortes J, Hudgens S, Twelves C, Perez EA, Awada A, Yelle L, et al. Health-related quality of life in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer treated with eribulin mesylate or capecitabine in an open-label randomized phase 3 trial. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2015;154(3):509–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thippeswamy R, Patil S, Shashidara HP, Satheesh CT, Vittal H, Mishra S. Eribulin mesylate in Indian patients: a single center experience. Indian J Cancer. 2015;52(3):297–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Bajpai J, Ramaswamy A, Gupta S, Ghosh J, Gulia S. Eribulin in heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer: a tertiary care center experience from India. Indian J Cancer. 2016;53(3):460.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Srinivasa B, Lalkota BP, Badarke G, Hazarika D, Mohammad N, Sapkota S, et al. Prospective analysis of patients with metastatic breast cancer receiving eribulin mesylate as second or more lines of chemotherapy: an Indian experience. Clin Med Insights Oncol. 2018;1(12):1179554918782475.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association of Gynecologic Oncologists of India 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Taha Sethjiwala
    • 1
  • Manikandan Dhanushkodi
    • 1
    Email author
  • Venkatraman Radhakrishnan
    • 1
  • Jayachandran Perumal Kalaiarasi
    • 1
  • Nikita Mehra
    • 1
  • Archit Joshi
    • 1
  • Arun Kumar Rajan
    • 1
  • Gangothri Selvarajan
    • 1
  • Balasubramanian Ananthi
    • 2
  • Priya Iyer
    • 2
  • Geetha Senguttuvan
    • 2
  • Bharathi Srilatha
    • 2
  • Arvind Krishnamurthy
    • 3
  • Sridevi Velusamy
    • 3
  • Selvaluxmy Ganesarajah
    • 2
  • Trivadi S. Ganesan
    • 1
  • Tenali Gnana Sagar
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Medical OncologyCancer Institute (WIA)ChennaiIndia
  2. 2.Department of Radiation OncologyCancer Institute (WIA)ChennaiIndia
  3. 3.Department of Surgical OncologyCancer Institute (WIA)ChennaiIndia

Personalised recommendations