Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
BACKGROUND: This open-label, nonrandomized phase II clinical trial investigated the efficacy of capecitabine-based doublets in the first-line treatment of metastatic triple-negative breast cancer (mTNBC). METHODS: Eligible mTNBC women with measurable diseases were recruited to receive either TX regimen (docetaxel 75 mg/m(2) i.v. on day 1 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) b.i.d. on days 1-14 every 3 weeks) or NX regimen (vinorelbine 25 mg/m(2) i.v. on days 1 and 8 plus capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) b.i.d. on days 1-14 every 3 weeks) for up to 6 cycles until disease progression or unacceptable toxicity. The primary end point was objective response rate (ORR) and secondary end points included progression-free survival (PFS), overall survival (OS) and clinical benefit rate (CBR). RESULTS: Forty-five mTNBC patients, 27 in TX and 18 in NX were recruited. The total ORR was 20.0% and CBR was 40%. After a median follow-up of 28 months, PFS was 5.2 months (95% CI, 4.1-6.3 months) and OS was 18.2 months (95% CI, 8.7-27.7 months). The response rate was numerically but not statistically lower in the TX group than in the NX group (27.8 vs. 14.8%, p = 0.449). No difference was found in either PFS (4.9 vs. 5.2 months, p = 0.483) or OS (21.5 vs. 18.3 months, p = 0.964) between the two regimens. CONCLUSIONS: Although the OS seems to be reasonable, the efficacy of capecitabine-containing TX or NX regimen was limited in terms of response and PFS in mTNBC patients, suggesting capecitabine-based doublet may be acceptable but has limited potency in this subtype.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Liao et al. (2013) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: