Intravenous versus oral vinorelbine plus capecitabine as second-line treatment in advanced breast cancer patients. A retrospective comparison of two consecutive phase II studies

Vito Lorusso, Saverio Cinieri, Marianna Giampaglia, Mariangela Ciccarese, Andrea Tinelli, Vincenzo Chiuri, Corrado Manca, Nicola Silvestris, Giampiero Gasparini, Giuseppe Colucci

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

Abstract

Vinorelbine (i.v.) plus capecitabine (oral) combination therapy is active in anthracycline/taxane pretreated patients with metastatic breast cancer. Availability of oral vinorelbine provides this combination in an all-oral formulation. Two consecutive phase II trials differing only in vinorelbine administration routes evaluated their respective activities and tolerabilities in this population. In the i.v. group (n = 38) disease control was 61% (37% PR, 24% SD), median TTP 6.8 months and median survival 11.3 months. In the oral group (n = 38) disease control was 77% (5.4% CR, 34% PR, 38% SD), median TTP 7 months and median survival 10 months. G3-G4 neutropenia was more common in the oral group (p <0.05); G2-G3 anaemia [5] and G3 thrombocytopenia [1] were observed only in the oral group. Although the comparison between the two regimens was not randomized, the results observed in these two consecutive phase II studies may suggest that oral and iv vinorelbine, in combination with capecitabine, can achieve similar responses in patients with metastatic breast cancer refractory to anthra-taxane combinations.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)214-218
Number of pages5
JournalBreast
Volume19
Issue number3
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Jun 2010

Keywords

  • Administration
  • Capecitabine
  • Metastatic breast cancer
  • Vinorelbine

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Surgery
  • Medicine(all)

Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'Intravenous versus oral vinorelbine plus capecitabine as second-line treatment in advanced breast cancer patients. A retrospective comparison of two consecutive phase II studies'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this