4.2 Article

Efficacy and safety of vinorelbine-capecitabine oral metronomic combination in elderly metastatic breast cancer patients: VICTOR-1 study

Journal

TUMORI JOURNAL
Volume 103, Issue 1, Pages E4-E8

Publisher

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.5301/tj.5000543

Keywords

Breast cancer; Capecitabine; Elderly; Metronomic chemotherapy; Vinorelbine

Categories

Funding

  1. Pierre Fabre Pharma s.r.l., Milan, Italy

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose: Elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer are expected to derive similar benefits from chemotherapy as younger patients, but are more likely to experience therapy-related toxicity. Data from the VICTOR-1 study showed that metronomic therapy with vinorelbine and capecitabine was effective and well tolerated in patients with metastatic breast cancer. This analysis determined the efficacy and safety of the metronomic combination of oral vinorelbine and capecitabine in a subgroup of VICTOR-1 study patients aged >= 70 years. Methods: Eighteen of the 32 patients enrolled in VICTOR-1 were aged >= 70 years. Objective response and clinical benefit rates were calculated and toxicity was determined using the NCI-CTCAE criteria. Results: All patients had at least 1 comorbidity (4 had 2 comorbidities), and 77.7% were taking concomitant medication. Eight patients (44%) had received >= 1 chemotherapy regimens for metastatic disease and most (78%) had >= 2 metastatic sites. Grade 1-2 adverse events occurred in 45.8% of cycles, whereas the incidence of grade 3 and grade 4 events was very low (1.5% and 0.7%, respectively). Median time to progression was 10.5 months (range 1-40). The objective response rate was 33% and the clinical benefit rate was 67%. Conclusions: The all-oral metronomic combination of vinorelbine and capecitabine had an acceptable efficacy profile and appears to be better tolerated than standard treatment schedules in elderly metastatic breast cancer patients (age >= 70 years).

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available