A randomized trial of eribulin monotherapy versus eribulin plus anlotinib in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer
Eribulin mesylate is a novel, nontaxane, microtubule dynamics inhibitor. In this study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of eribulin versus eribulin plus the oral small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor anlotinib in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer. In this single-cent...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | ESMO open 2023-06, Vol.8 (3), p.101563-101563, Article 101563 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
Zusammenfassung: | Eribulin mesylate is a novel, nontaxane, microtubule dynamics inhibitor. In this study, we assessed the efficacy and safety of eribulin versus eribulin plus the oral small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor anlotinib in patients with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer.
In this single-center, open-label, phase II clinical study (NCT05206656) conducted in a Chinese hospital, patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 (HER2)-negative, locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracycline- or taxane-based chemotherapy were randomized (1 : 1) to receive eribulin alone or in combination with anlotinib. The primary efficacy endpoint was investigator-assessed progression-free survival (PFS).
From June 2020 to April 2022, a total of 80 patients were randomly assigned to either eribulin monotherapy or eribulin plus anlotinib combination therapy, with 40 patients in each group. The data cut-off was 10 August 2022. The median PFS was 3.5 months [95% confidence interval (CI) 2.8-5.5 months] for eribulin and 5.1 months (95% CI 4.5-6.9 months) for eribulin plus anlotinib (hazard ratio = 0.56, 95% CI 0.32-0.98; P = 0.04). The objective response rates were 32.5% versus 52.5% (P = 0.07), respectively, and disease control rates were 67.5% versus 92.5% (P = 0.01), respectively. Patients |
---|---|
ISSN: | 2059-7029 2059-7029 |
DOI: | 10.1016/j.esmoop.2023.101563 |