4.7 Article Proceedings Paper

Safety and efficacy of two different doses of capecitabine in the treatment of advanced breast cancer in older women

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
Volume 23, Issue 10, Pages 2155-2161

Publisher

AMER SOC CLINICAL ONCOLOGY
DOI: 10.1200/JCO.2005.02.167

Keywords

-

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Purpose To evaluate the safety and efficacy of capecitabine in older women with advanced breast cancer. Patients and Methods Seventy-three eligible patients (median age, 73 years; range, 65 to 89 years) were enrolled. The first 30 patients received oral capecitabine 1,250 mg/m(2) twice daily on days 1 to 14 every, 21 days. Due to the occurrence of two toxic deaths, capecitabine 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily was given to the subsequent 43 patients. Results All patients were assessable for safety and efficacy. A total of 351 treatment cycles were administered (median, six per patient; range, one to eight cycles). Dose reductions due to toxicities were required in 30% of patients in the standard-dose group, but capecitabine was given without a dose reduction to 95% of patients in the low-dose group. Capecitabine demonstrated a favorable safety profile. The overall incidence of grade 3/4 toxicities was low: the most common events reported in <= 10% of the patients were fatigue, diarrhea, dyspnea, and nausea. In the standard-dose group, the response rate was 36.7% (95% CI, 19.9% to 56.1%). An additional seven patients had disease stabilization at 24 weeks. In the low-dose group, the response rate was 34.9% (95% CI, 21% to 50.9%). An additional 15 patients had prolonged stabilization. The median time to disease progression was 4 months in either group. Conclusion This study shows that capecitabine is safe and effective in the elderly breast cancer patient. Based on the overall results, the capecitabine dose of 1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily merits consideration as standard for older patients who do not have severely impaired renal function. (c) 2005 by American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Authors

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

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available