Capecitabine monotherapy: review of studies in first-line HER-2-negative metastatic breast cancer

Abstract

The goals of treatment for metastatic breast cancer (MBC) are to prolong overall survival (OS) while maximizing quality of life, palliating symptoms, and delaying tumor progression. For many years, anthracyclines and taxanes have been the mainstay of treatment for MBC, but these agents are now commonly administered earlier in the course of the disease. A recent meta-analysis revealed adverse effects on OS and overall response rates in patients with MBC receiving first-line anthracycline-based chemotherapy following relapse on adjuvant chemotherapy. Noncrossresistant cytotoxic agents and combinations that combine high clinical activity and acceptable tolerability while being convenient for patients are therefore needed for the first-line treatment of MBC patients. Capecitabine has substantial antitumor activity in the first-line treatment of patients with MBC in prospective, randomized, phase II/III clinical trials as monotherapy and in combination with biologic and novel agents. First-line capecitabine monotherapy has a favorable safety profile, lacking myelosuppression and alopecia, and does not compromise the administration of further lines of chemotherapy. Capecitabine is suitable for long-term administration without the cumulative toxicity that can limit the prolonged use of other chemotherapy agents. Here, we review the available data on capecitabine as a single agent for first-line treatment of patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative MBC.

Figure 1.

Kaplan–Meier plot of OS with first-line capecitabine versus other chemotherapies in patients with MBC aged >75 years: retrospective analysis [33]. Abbreviations: CI, confidence interval; MBC, metastatic breast cancer; OS, overall survival. Reprinted from Debled M, Madranges N, Mertens C et al. First-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer in patients ≥75 years: A retrospective single-centre analysis. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol 2011;80:171–179. Copyright (2011), with permission from Elsevier.