Upload
ember
View
153
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
CAELYX CLINICAL TRIALS Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC). Clinical Benefits of CAELYX in Breast Cancer. Anthracycline with cardiac sparing effect Significantly reduced risk of cardiotoxicity Preserves cardiac function for patients who can benefit from long-term anthracycline therapy - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Citation preview
CAELYXCAELYXCLINICAL TRIALSCLINICAL TRIALS
Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC)Metastatic Breast Cancer (MBC)
Clinical Benefits of CAELYX in Breast Cancer
Anthracycline with cardiac sparing effect
– Significantly reduced risk of cardiotoxicity
– Preserves cardiac function for patients who can benefit from long-term anthracycline therapy
Comparable efficacy vs conventional doxorubicin Clinical evidence demonstrates improved safety profile:
Lower incidence: Higher incidence:– Nausea/vomiting – Hand-foot syndrome– Alopecia (HFS)– Myelosuppression – Stomatitis– Cardiotoxicity
CAELYX – Current Indications
Monotherapy for MBC in patients who are at increased cardiac risk
– Several studies demonstrating antitumor activity and acceptable tolerability in MBC and LABC
Advanced ovarian cancer in women who have failed a first-line platinum-based chemotherapy regimen
AIDS-related KS in patients with low CD4 counts (<200 CD4 lymphocytes/mm3) and extensive mucocutaneous or visceral disease
CAELYX in Breast Cancer: Target Populations
Rechallenge (eg, 1st-line treatment of MBC that responded to an anthracycline-containing regimen in adjuvant setting)
Combination therapy with trastuzumab
Patients with cardiovascular risk factors (eg, patients who present with hypertension, prior mediastinal irradiation, or a history of heart disease)
Elderly patients
Patients for whom the risk of specific toxicities are of significant concern (eg, alopecia, myelosuppression, N/V)
CAELYX Monotherapy
Sequential single-agent chemotherapy represents a reasonable option for patients with MBC
Monotherapy or sequential single-agent chemotherapy may be especially suitable for:
– Elderly or patients with poorer performance status
– Those unable to tolerate the toxicity ofcombination therapy
– Patients with slowly growing tumors
Single-Agent CAELYX for MBC: Phase II Studies
Ranson (JCO 1997)
Lyass (Cancer 2000)
No. of patients 71 45
Pt. population ~ 40% previously-treated
100% pretreated;69% ≥ 2 regimens; 71% previous anthracycline
CAEYLX regimen 45-50 mg/m2 q 3-4 wk x 6 cycles
35-70 mg/m2 q 3-6 wk
Efficacy – ORR 31% 33%
Safety Gr 3/4 neutropenia Gr 3/4 mucositis HFS
27%32%5% of cycles (45 mg/m2 Q 4 w)
Mild; dose-dependentDose-dependentSchedule-dependent
Single-Agent CAELYX for MBC: Phase II Studies
Coleman(Proc. SABCS 2002)
No. of pts (evaluable) 106
Pt. population Randomized; ≥ 65 yo or contraindication to standard anthra.; 33% pretreated
CAEYLX regimen (A) 60 mg/m2 q 6 wk -or- (B) 50 mg/m2 q 4 wk
Efficacy – ORR 20-23%
Safety Gr 3/4 neutropenia Gr 3/4 mucositis HFS
NR31% (A)/ 18% (B)11% (B)
Single-Agent CAELYX for MBC: Phase II Studies
Schmid(Proc. SABCS 2004)
Mlineritsch(Onkologie 2004)
No. of patients (evaluable) 24 (19) 30
Pt. population Heavily pretreated (med. prior regimens, 4); 88% prior anthra.; 83% prior taxane; cum. dox < 400 mg/m2 at entry
Failure of prior chemo for MBC (10% prior adjuvant anthra)
CAEYLX regimen 25 mg/m2 q 2 wk 45 mg/m2 q 4 wk
Efficacy – ORR 5% (CB* = 21%) 31%
Safety Gr 3/4 neutropenia Gr 3/4 mucositis HFS
0013% (no grade 4)
3% FN030% (all ≤ grade 2)
*Clinical Benefit =PR + SD > 6 mo.; 3 of 4 received prior anthra.
CAELYX 50 vs 40 mg/m2 in MBC: A Phase II Trial
Phase II
N = 53
Previously treated MBC
TREATMENT
CAELYX 40 mg/m2 q 4 wk
Al-Batran et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004; 88:S204. Abstract 5060. Updated based on poster.
Compared results to 50 mg/m2 trial of similar design
CAELYX 50 vs 40 mg/m2 in MBC: Outcomes
Al-Batran et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004; 88:S204. Abstract 5060. Updated based on poster.
50 mg/m2
(n=46)40 mg/m2
(n=45)
Efficacy ORR PFS, median OS, median
17%4.6 mo
13.8 mo
13%3.3 mo9.8 mo
Safety
Dose reduction, % pts
Median no. of cycles
Toxicity
Grade 3/4 HFS
Grade 3/4 Stomatitis
Grade 3/4 Neutropenia
28%
5
7%
17%
16%
7%
4
0%
2%
9%
CAELYX 40 mg/m2 q 4 wks*
Docetaxel 36 mg/m2 d 1, 8, 15 q 4 wks*
CAELYX vs Docetaxel in MBC: A Randomized Phase II Trial
Study Design• 1st-line MBC• Open-label,
crossover• Phase II
Eligibility• Prior adjuvant
anthracycline or taxane if ≥ 6 mo
• ≤ 300 mg/m2 of prior doxorubicin
• Normal LVEF
Yardley et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;88:S203. Abstract 5057.
RANDOMIZATION
N = 73
*Max. 8 cycles prior to crossover†At time of progression
N = 36
N = 37
CROSSOVER†
CAELYX vs Docetaxel: Interim Results
CAELYX*
(n=36)
Docetaxel†
(n=37)
Median no. of cycles 2.5 4
Response rate (initial regimen) 17% 22%
Progression-free survival 6.9 mo 5.4 mo
Overall survival 15.8 mo 13.6 mo
Yardley et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;88:S203. Abstract 5057. Updated based on poster.
*22 patients received drug on crossover; †18 patients received drug on crossover
CAELYX vs Docetaxel: Toxicity% of Pts
Grade 3 and 4 Toxicity CAELYX(n=36)
Docetaxel(n=37)
Neutropenia 14 14
Anemia 3 5
Transfusions 6 11
Fatigue 3 30
Arthralgia 3 11
Nausea 6 16
HFS 11 5
Stomatitis 14 5
Hospitalization 17 35
Yardley et al. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 2004;88:S203. Abstract 5057. Updated based on poster.
CAELYX 50 mg/m2 q 4 wks*
Conventional doxorubicin 60 mg/m2 q 3 wks†
*Until PD or unacceptable toxicity.
†Until PD or cumulative anthracycline dose of 550 mg/m2.
CAELYX vs Conventional Doxorubicin in First-line Treatment
of MBC: Phase III Trial
Study Design• 1st-line MBC
(Stages IIIB/IV)• Open-label,
multicenter
Stratification• Prior adjuvant
anthracycline• Cardiac risk factor• Bone only mets
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
RANDOMIZATION
N = 509 68 international sites
CAELYX vs Doxorubicin Study Endpoints
Primary– Progression-free survival (non-inferiority)– Cardiotoxicity:
Cardiac event as defined by:• LVEF decrease of ≥ 20% from baseline if resting LVEF
remained in normal range
• LVEF decrease of ≥ 10% if resting LVEF became abnormal
Patients also assessed for clinical signs/symptoms of CHF
Secondary– Overall survival – Overall response rate– Tolerability
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
Baseline Patient Demographics
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
CAELYX(N=254)
Conventional Doxorubicin
(N=255)
Median age, years 59 58
Menopausal status, % Premenopausal Postmenopausal
3169
3562
Estrogen receptor status, % ER + ER -
3521
4023
WHO performance status, % 0 1 2
54379
494011
Baseline Disease Characteristics
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
CAELYX(N=254)
Conventional Doxorubicin
(N=255)
No. of metastatic sites, %
1
2
≥ 3
37
33
30
41
31
28
Metastatic site classification, %
Visceral
Nonvisceral
Bone metastases only
59
32
9
56
34
10
Baseline DemographicsPrior Therapy
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
CAELYX(N=254)
Conventional Doxorubicin
(N=255)
Prior therapy*, %
Adjuvant only Advanced disease only Adjuvant and advanced disease
65
5258
62
427
12
Prior conventional anthracycline, % 15 16
Baseline cum. anthracycline (mg/m2), % < 150 150-300 > 300
212< 1
2131
Previous radiation therapy, % 47 49*Chemotherapy or hormonal therapy.
Baseline Cardiac Risk Factors
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
CAELYX(N=254)
Conventional Doxorubicin
(N=255)
No cardiac risk factors, % 52 53
Prior cardiac risk factors, %
Prior mediastinal irradiation
History of heart disease
History of hypertension
Age ≥ 65
≥ 2 risk factors
48
4
0.4
12
15
17
47
3
0.4
17
13
15
Results: Treatment Summary
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
CAELYX(N=254)
Conventional Doxorubicin
(N=255)
Median duration of therapy, wks (cycles) 21 (5.3) 19 (6.3)
Mean dose per cycle, mg/m2 48 58
Mean cycle length, days 29.6 22.3
Median cum. anthracycline exposure*, mg/m2
293 361
Drug discontinuation, %
24 24
*Including prior anthracycline therapy
CAELYX vs Doxorubicin Response Rates*
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
CAELYX(N=209)
Conventional Doxorubicin
(N=201)
Overall response rate (CR + PR) 33% 38%
Complete response (CR) 3% 4%
Partial response (PR) 29% 34%
Stable disease (SD) 25% 25%
Progressive disease (PD) 18% 11%
Median duration of response 7.3 mo 7.1 mo
*Measurable disease (n=410); 25% in each group had no radiographic assessment of response.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Months From Randomization
Pro
bab
ility
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
CAELYX vs Doxorubicin Progression-Free Survival (PFS)
CAELYXConventional doxorubicin
Median PFS, mo. 6.9 7.8HR = 1.00 (95% CI: 0.82-1.22)
Intent-to-Treat Population
CAELYX vs DoxorubicinOverall Survival (OS)
Intent-to-Treat Population
HR = 0.94 (95% CI: 0.74-1.19); P = .59
CAELYXConventional doxorubicin
Median OS, mo. 21 22
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
Months From Randomization
Pro
bab
ility
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
CAELYX vs Doxorubicin- Cardiac Events -
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
CAELYX(N=254)
Conventional Doxorubicin
(N=255)
LVEF decrease
LVEF decrease + signs/symptoms of CHF
LVEF decrease alone
10
0
10
48
10
38
Signs and symptoms of CHF without LVEF decrease
2 2
Patients who stopped therapy due to cardiac event
6 36
CAELYX vs Doxorubicin Cardiac Events vs Cumulative Dose
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
0 50 100 150 200 300250 400 450 500 550 600350Cumulative Anthracycline Dose
Kap
lan
-Mei
er E
stim
ates
of
Car
dia
c E
ven
ts
CAELYX
Conventional Doxorubicin
HR = 3.16 (95% CI: 1.58-6.31); P < .001
CAELYX vs DoxorubicinLVEF vs Cumulative Dose
All < 300 ≥ 300 to < 450 ≥ 450
CAELYX
Conventional Doxorubicin
-18
-16
-14
-12
-10
-8
-6
-4
-2
0
Med
ian
% C
han
ge
Fro
m B
asel
ine
Cumulative Anthracycline Dose (mg/m2)
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
n=152
n=187
n=62
n=58
n=54
n=74
n=36
n=55
CAELYX vs Doxorubicin Cardiotoxicity in High-Risk Patients
NCardiotoxicity
EventsHR 95% CI
≥ 65 years of age
CAELYX
Doxorubicin
Prior adjuvant anthracycline
CAELYX
Doxorubicin
Cardiac Risk factor
CAELYX
Doxorubicin
78
66
38
40
122
121
0
9
1
11
5
21
N/A
7.27
2.7
N/A
0.93-56.80
1.01-7.18
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
Treatment-Related Adverse EventsAll Grades
% P
ati
ents
12
20
37
19
4
23 22
2
16
66
53
31
1013 15
48
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
CAELYX ConventionalDoxorubicin
*
*Grade 2 alopecia = complete hair loss; grade 3-4 NA. O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
Treatment-Related Adverse Events: Alopecia
CAELYX(N=254)
Conventional Doxorubicin
(N=255)
Overall incidence 20% 66%
Pronounced or total hair loss 7% 54%
13
1 24 5
02
5 48
2 2
17
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
CAELYX ConventionalDoxorubicin
Treatment-Related Adverse EventsGrades 3/4*
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
% P
ati
ents
*Grade 3-4 alopecia NA ; grade 2 alopecia = complete hair loss; cardiotoxicity not included.
Study Conclusions
CAELYX provides comparable efficacy to conventional doxorubicin
CAELYX has significantly less cardiotoxicity than conventional doxorubicin
– 7-fold reduction in risk of cardiotoxicity with CAELYX in pts previously treated with anthracyclines
CAELYX has a distinct side effect profile
– Significantly less alopecia, N/V, myelosuppression– Manageable HFS
CAELYX has an improved risk-benefit profile
O’Brien et al. Ann Oncol. 2004;15:440-449.
CAELYX 50 mg/m2 q 4 weeks
Study Design• MBC after taxane
failure (Stage IIIB/IV)• Open-label, multicenter• Phase III
Stratification• Number of prior
regimens (1 or 2)• Presence of bone
metastases only (yes/no)
CAELYX in MBC After Taxane Failure
Vinorelbine 30 mg/m2 weekly- OR -
Mitomycin C 10 mg/m2 d 1, 28Vinblastine 5 mg/m2 d 1, 14, 28, 42*
301 Patients 52 International sites
*Days 1-56 for 2 cycles; subsequent cycles: Mitomycin C on d 1 and vinblastine D1, 21; Mitomycin C dosed every 6 to 8 wks.Keller et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3893-3901.
RANDOMIZATION
N = 150
N = 129
N = 22
CAELYX in MBC After Taxane Failure Study Endpoints
Primary– Progression-free survival
Secondary– Overall survival– Overall response rate– Response duration– Event-free survival– Tolerability– QOL
Keller et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3893-3901.
Baseline CharacteristicsCAELYX(N=150)
Comparator(N=151)
Age, years 56 56
Postmenopausal, % 54 56
Estrogen Receptor Status, % Positive Negative
4733
4832
Sites of Metastasis, % Visceral Bone only
6310
6610
Previous Chemotherapy Regimens, n 1 2 1 only bone mets 2 only bone mets
222323
222323
Keller et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3893-3901.
Prior Therapy
CAELYX(N=150)
Comparator(N=151)
Adjuvant therapy, % 78 73
Hormonal therapy, % 65 59
Chemotherapy, % Adjuvant only Advanced disease only Adjuvant plus advanced disease
42274
42769
Keller et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3893-3901.
Prior Therapy (cont.)
CAELYX(N=150)
Comparator(N=151)
Regimens for advanced dz, % 1 2
5635
5236
Anthracycline exposure, % 83 84
Cumulative prior anthracycline dose (mg/m2), % 0-300 >300-450 >450
61175
52263
Primary anthracycline resistance, % 39 35
Radiation therapy, % 77 71
Keller et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3893-3901.
CAELYX in MBC After Taxane Failure Response Rates
CAELYX(N=115)
Comparator(N=117)
Overall Response (CR + PR)
Complete Response (CR)
Partial Response (PR)
Stable Disease (SD)
Progressive Disease (PD)
10%
2%
8%
28%
32%
12%
2%
10%
28%
32%
Median Duration of Response 5.7 months 6.0 months
Keller et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3893-3901.
CAELYX in MBC After Taxane Failure Progression-Free Survival (PFS)
Months
Pro
gre
ssio
n-F
ree
Su
rviv
al
CAELYX Comparator
Median PFS, mo. 2.9 2.5
HR = 1.26 (95% CI: 0.98-1.62)
Keller et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3893-3901.
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
0.9
1.0
0 3 6 9 12
CAELYX in MBC After Taxane Failure Overall Survival (OS)
Ov
era
ll S
urv
iva
l
0.0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1.0
0 3 6 9 12 15 18Months
CAELYX Comparator
Median OS*, mo. 11 9
HR = 1.05 (95% CI: 0.82-1.33)
*Data updated in Keller et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3893-3901.
Data on file Schering-Plough.
Progression-Free Survival by Subgroup
Subgroups analyzed retrospectively based on protocol-eligible patients.
Keller et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3893-3901.
CAELYX is effective independent of patient subsets
Patient Population/Subgroups
Protocol Evaluable (115/117)
Age < 55 (49/55)
Age ≥ 55 (66/62)
Performance ≥ 80% (93/99)
Performance < 70% (22/18)
Bone Only (11/11)
Not Bone Only (104/106)
With Any Anthracycline Exposure (92/96)
With No Anthracycline Exposure (23/21)
With Anthracycline Resistance (46/34)
With No Anthracycline Resistance (69/80)
Estrogen Recept: Negative (41/40)
Estrogen Recept: Positive (54/56)
Number of Chemo Regimens < 2 (72/72)
Number of Chemo Regimens ≥ 2 (43/45)
Disease-Free Interval ≤ 24 (52/65)
Disease-Free Interval > 24 (63/52)
Hazard Ratio with a 95% C.I.0 0.8 1 2 3
Treatment-Related Adverse EventsAll Grades
37
20
3
31
20
3
14
22
1
5
9
0.8
21
5
27
1714
0.8
4
11
16 15
0
9
0
23
18
5 5
0
5 5
32
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
HFS
Fatig
ue
Alope
cia
Nause
a
Vomiti
ng
Neutro
penia
Muc
ositis
Stom
atiti
s
Neuro
pathy
Const
ipat
ion
Asthe
nia
CAELYX (n=150) Vinorelbine (n=129) Mitomycin C + Vinblastine (n=22)
Per
cen
t o
f P
atie
nts
Keller et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3893-3901.
Treatment-Related Adverse EventsGrades 3/4
19
43
42
35
0 01
02
7
3
8
0 0 0.82
4
0
5 5
0 0 0 0 0 0 00
5
10
15
20
25
30
HFS
Fatig
ue
Nause
a
Vomiti
ng
Neutro
penia
Muc
ositis
Stom
atiti
s
Neuro
pathy
Const
ipat
ion
Asthe
nia
CAELYX (n=150) Vinorelbine (n=129) Mitomycin C + Vinblastine (n=22)
Per
cen
t o
f P
atie
nts
Keller et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3893-3901.
Cardiac Toxicity
Defined per protocol as a decrease in LVEF of ≥ 15 points from baseline or a ≥ 5-point decrease from baseline if level is below LLN for the institution
LVEF changes assessed only in patients receiving CAELYX– 22 patients had LVEF changes consistent with protocol-
defined cardiac toxicity
– No correlation with cumulative anthracycline dose
– 4 patients dc’d drug due to LVEF decrease
No patient developed clinical CHF
Study Conclusions
CAELYX demonstrates activity in MBC after taxane failure:
– PFS: 2.9 months (vs 2.5 months comparator)– OS: 11.0 months (vs 9.0 months comparator)
CAELYX has comparable efficacy to vinorelbine/mitomycin for MBC refractory to taxane-based therapies
– q 4 wk CAELYX = q wk vinorelbine administration
CAELYX represents a therapeutic option for pts with heavily pretreated, taxane-refractory MBC
Keller et al. J Clin Oncol. 2004;22:3893-3901.
CAELYX Combination CAELYX Combination Therapy for MBCTherapy for MBC
Rationale for CAELYX Combinations
Preclinical synergy
Non-overlapping mechanisms/toxicities
Polychemotherapy, in particular with taxane-anthracycline-based regimens, is especially suitable for patients with:
– Life-threatening disease– Symptomatic visceral metastatic disease– Quickly growing tumors– Ability to tolerate the toxicity of combination therapy
CAELYX CombinationsBreast Cancer
Investigators Combination Response
Overmoyer 1998; Silverman 1999; Srimuninnimit 2002
PLD + cyclophosphamide 41%-68%
Jones 2000; Gogas 2002; Rigatos 2003; Vorobiof 2004; Fulfaro 2004
PLD + paclitaxel 56%-75%
Sparano 2001; Holmes 2003; Alexopoulos 2004; Morabito 2004
PLD + docetaxel 32%-64%
Martin 2002; Gebbia 2002; Ardavanis 2003
PLD + vinorelbine 36%-68%
Rivera 2003; Fabi 2004 PLD + gemcitabine 48%-52%
Guastalla 2003 PLD + cyclophosphamide + 5-fluorouracil
CAELYX + Cyclophosphamide in BC
Silverman (Proc. ASCO 1999)
Srimuninnimit(Proc. ASCO 2002)
No. of patients / med. cycles 20 / NR 30 / NR
Pt. population Untreated (n=6) or previously treated MBC; prior adjuvant anthra. (n=3)
LABC: T3 (n=7); T4 (n=23)
Regimen CAELYX Cyclophosphamide
Q 3 wk30 mg/m2 d 1600 mg/m2 d 1
Q 3 wk x 335 mg/m2 d 1600 mg/m2 d 1
Efficacy – ORR* 60% 73%
Safety G 3/4 neutropenia FN G 3/4 HFS Cardiac
Moderate 25%NRMild 15%NR
37%NR3%NR
CAELYX + Paclitaxel in MBCVorobiof (Breast 2004)
Rigatos (Oncol Rep 2003)
No. of patients
No. of cycles, median
34
6
24
Not reported
Pt. population 1st line for MBC; 41% received adjuvant chemo- or chemoendocrine therapy (anthra.: 2 pts)
1st line for MBC; all evaluable pts received prior adjuvant chemotherapy
Regimen CAELYX Paclitaxel
Q 3 wk30 mg/m2
175 mg/m2
Q 3 wk30 mg/m2
175 mg/m2
Efficacy – ORR 73% 70% (23 evaluable)
Safety per patient G 3/4 neutropenia FN G 3/4 HFS Cardiac
2 toxic deaths21%6%29%1 pt LVEF ↓ > 20%
22%Not reported48%1-arrhythmia1-LVEF ↓ (not defined)
Neoadjuvant CAELYX + Paclitaxel in LABC
Phase II
N = 35
Newly diagnosed LABC
TREATMENT
CAELYX 35 mg/m2 d 1
+
Paclitaxel 175 mg/m2 d 1
q 3 wk
RESULTSORR 71% (CR 17%, PR
54%)
pCR after 4-6 cycles 3 pts
Grade 3 HFS 9%
Grade 3/4 neutropenia 15%
Alopecia 83% Gogas et al. Ann Oncol. 2002;13:1737-1742.
CAELYX + Docetaxel in MBC
Alexopoulos(Ann Oncol 2004)
Holmes(Proc. SABCS 2003)
No. of patients / med. cycles 44 / 6 48 / 4
Pt. population 1st line for MBC; 46% received prior adjuvant chemotherapy; 23% anthra.-based
1st line for MBC; 48% received prior adjuvant chemotherapy
Regimen CAELYX Docetaxel
Q 3 wk30 mg/m2
75 mg/m2
Q wk x 3; Q 28 d10 mg/m2
25 mg/m2
Efficacy – ORR* 64% 32%
Safety G 3/4 neutropenia FN G 3/4 HFS Cardiac
18%9%2%Anthra-pretx: mean Δ in LVEF of 4%
2%4%6%NR
*Assessable pts
CAELYX + Docetaxel in MBC
Morabito(Breast Caner Res Treat 2004)
No. of patients / med. cycles 33/4
Pt. population 1st line for MBC; LABC pts included and evaluated separately
Regimen CAELYX Docetaxel
Q 3 wk35 mg/m2
35 mg/m2 d 2, 9
Efficacy – ORR* 64%
Safety G 3/4 neutropenia FN G 3/4 HFS Cardiac
9%0%14%NR
*Assessable pts
CAELYX + Vinorelbine in MBCMartin(Clin Breast Ca 2004)
Gebbia (Oncology 2002)
Ardavanis(ASCO 2003)
No. of patients / med. cycles
35 / 6 30 (18 / 6†) 32 / 3
Pt. population Prior anthra. therapy in adjuvant or metastatic setting
100% received prior adjuvant chemotherapy; no pt had prior chemo for MBC
Taxane- or anthra.-pretx’d
Regimen CAELYX Vinorelbine
Q 4 wk35 mg/m2 d 130 mg/m2 d 1
Q 15 d20 mg/m2
30 mg/m2
Q 4 wk40 mg/m2 d 125 mg/m2 d 1, 15
Efficacy – ORR* 35% 68% (63%†) 41%
Safety G 3/4 neutropenia FN G 3/4 HFS Cardiac
44% (G 4)9%6%3 pt had LVEF ↓ (not defined)
39%†
--†
01 pt had 15% ↓ in LVEF†
53%--NRNR
*Assessable pts†Phase II portion
CAELYX + Gemcitabine in MBCRivera(JCO 2003)
Fabi (ASCO 2004)
No. of patients / med. cycles 49 / 6 28 / 5
Pt. Population Previously untreated; 57% received prior adjuvant chemo; 39% prior adjuvant anthra.
Untreated (n=15) or previously treated MBC (1 or 2 prior regimen); 39% received prior anthra.
Regimen CAELYX Gemcitabine
Q 3 wk24 mg/m2 d 1800 mg/m2 d 1, 8
Q 3 wk25 mg/m2 d 1800 mg/m2 d 1, 8
Efficacy – ORR* ORR anthra. pretx’d
52%58%
48%36%
Safety G 3/4 neutropenia FN G 3/4 HFS Cardiac
74%2%6%1 pt LVEF ↓ of 21% (had prior med. XRT)
39%3.5%----
*Assessable pts
CAELYX Combinations Conclusions
Phase II studies of CAELYX combinations demonstrate considerable activity in the treatment of MBC
Most combinations utilize a CAELYX dosage of 25-35 mg/m2 on a Q 3 wk schedule
Regimens have been generally well tolerated
CAELYX is a rational substitute for conventional anthracyclines in combination therapy for MBC
CAELYX in Breast Cancer: Conclusions
CAELYX is a novel anthracycline with established efficacy in MBC
CAELYX is associated with a distinct safety profile– Reduced rates of alopecia, nausea/vomiting, and
myelosuppression; manageable hand-foot syndrome; and, preservation of cardiac function
CAELYX offers a convenient regimen for various subgroups of MBC patients, including in the setting of anthracycline rechallenge
Phase II studies of CAELYX combinations demonstrate considerable activity and tolerability
CAELYX is a rational substitute for conventional doxorubicin in combination therapy for MBC