Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 May 16:13:1152123.
doi: 10.3389/fonc.2023.1152123. eCollection 2023.

Adjuvant capecitabine in triple negative breast cancer patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment: real-world evidence from CaRe, a multicentric, observational study

Francesca Sofia Di Lisa  1 Eriseld Krasniqi  2 Laura Pizzuti  2 Maddalena Barba  2 Katia Cannita  3 Ugo De Giorgi  4 Fulvio Borella  5 Jennifer Foglietta  6 Anna Cariello  7 Antonella Ferro  8 Elisa Picardo  9 Marco Mitidieri  9 Valentina Sini  10 Simonetta Stani  10 Giuseppe Tonini  11 Daniele Santini  12 Nicla La Verde  13 Anna Rita Gambaro  13 Antonino Grassadonia  14 Nicola Tinari  15 Ornella Garrone  16 Giuseppina Sarobba  17 Lorenzo Livi  18   19 Icro Meattini  18   19 Giuliana D'Auria  20 Matteo Vergati  20 Teresa Gamucci  20 Mirco Pistelli  21 Rossana Berardi  21 Emanuela Risi  22 Francesco Giotta  23 Vito Lorusso  23 Lucia Rinaldi  24 Salvatore Artale  25 Marina Elena Cazzaniga  26   27 Fable Zustovich  28 Federico Cappuzzo  2 Lorenza Landi  29 Rosalba Torrisi  30 Simone Scagnoli  31 Andrea Botticelli  12 Andrea Michelotti  32 Beatrice Fratini  32 Rosa Saltarelli  33 Ida Paris  34 Margherita Muratore  34 Alessandra Cassano  35 Lorenzo Gianni  36 Valeria Gaspari  36 Enzo Maria Veltri  37 Federica Zoratto  37 Elena Fiorio  38 Maria Agnese Fabbri  39 Marco Mazzotta  39 Enzo Maria Ruggeri  39 Rebecca Pedersini  40 Maria Rosaria Valerio  41 Lorena Filomeno  1 Mauro Minelli  42 Paola Scavina  42 Mimma Raffaele  43 Antonio Astone  44 Roy De Vita  45 Marcello Pozzi  45 Ferdinando Riccardi  46 Filippo Greco  47 Luca Moscetti  48 Monica Giordano  49 Marcello Maugeri-Saccà  2   50 Alessandro Zennaro  50 Claudio Botti  51 Fabio Pelle  51 Sonia Cappelli  51 Flavia Cavicchi  51 Enrico Vizza  52 Giuseppe Sanguineti  53 Federica Tomao  54 Enrico Cortesi  55 Paolo Marchetti  56 Silverio Tomao  57 Iolanda Speranza  12 Isabella Sperduti  50 Gennaro Ciliberto  58 Patrizia Vici  1
Affiliations

Adjuvant capecitabine in triple negative breast cancer patients with residual disease after neoadjuvant treatment: real-world evidence from CaRe, a multicentric, observational study

Francesca Sofia Di Lisa et al. Front Oncol. .

Abstract

Background: In triple negative breast cancer patients treated with neoadjuvant chemotherapy, residual disease at surgery is the most relevant unfavorable prognostic factor. Current guidelines consider the use of adjuvant capecitabine, based on the results of the randomized CREATE-X study, carried out in Asian patients and including a small subset of triple negative tumors. Thus far, evidence on Caucasian patients is limited, and no real-world data are available.

Methods: We carried out a multicenter, observational study, involving 44 oncologic centres. Triple negative breast cancer patients with residual disease, treated with adjuvant capecitabine from January 2017 through June 2021, were recruited. We primarily focused on treatment tolerability, with toxicity being reported as potential cause of treatment discontinuation. Secondarily, we assessed effectiveness in the overall study population and in a subset having a minimum follow-up of 2 years.

Results: Overall, 270 patients were retrospectively identified. The 50.4% of the patients had residual node positive disease, 7.8% and 81.9% had large or G3 residual tumor, respectively, and 80.4% a Ki-67 >20%. Toxicity-related treatment discontinuation was observed only in 10.4% of the patients. In the whole population, at a median follow-up of 15 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 62%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 84.0% and 76.2%, respectively. In 129 patients with a median follow-up of 25 months, 2-year disease-free survival was 43.4%, 2 and 3-year overall survival 78.0% and 70.8%, respectively. Six or more cycles of capecitabine were associated with more favourable outcomes compared with less than six cycles.

Conclusion: The CaRe study shows an unexpectedly good tolerance of adjuvant capecitabine in a real-world setting, although effectiveness appears to be lower than that observed in the CREATE-X study. Methodological differences between the two studies impose significant limits to comparability concerning effectiveness, and strongly invite further research.

Keywords: adjuvant capecitabine; neoadjuvant treatment; residual tumors; treatment discontinuation; triple negative breast cancer.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

LP received speaker fees from Novartis, outside the submitted work. UDG: Pfizer, BMS, MSD, PharmaMAR, AStellas, Bayer, Ipsen, Novartis; Invited speaker Roche, BMS, SAnofi, AstraZeneca; received research grants from AstraZeneca, SAnofi, Roche, outside the submitted work. AF received honoraria as a speaker from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. GT: advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. DS: advisory boards from Novartis, Pfizer, Eisai, Roche, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. NLV: Roche, MSD, Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, GSK, Pfizer, Gentili, Daiichi Sankyo, Dephaforum, outside the submitted work. OG: Eisai, MSD, Gilead, Seagen, Novartis, Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. IM: advisory boards from Eli Lilly, Novartis, Gentili, Roche, Pfizer, Ipsen, and Pierre-Fabre, outside the submitted work. GD’A: Novartis, Amgen, Eli Lilly outside the submitted work. TG received travel grants from Eisai, Roche, Pfizer, and Novartis; speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. MPi Consultant/advisory boards from Gilead, Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Novartis, Gentili, MSD, outside the submitted work. RB received research grant/advisory boards from AstraZeneca, Boehringer Ingelheim, Novartis, MSD, Otsuka, Eli Lilly, Roche, Amgen, GSK, Eisai, outside the submitted work. FGi: advisory boards from Gilead, Daiichi Sankyo, Seagen, outside the submitted work. MEC consultant/advisory role for Pierre-Fabre, Roche, Novartis, Eli Lilly, Celgene, outside the submitted work. RT: AstraZeneca, Eisai, Pfizer, Eli Lilly, MSD, Exact Science, outside the submitted work. AB: MSD, BMS, Pfizer, Novartis, Roche outside the submitted work. AM received travel grants from Eisai, Celgene, and Novartis Ipsen; personal fees/advisory boards from Eisai, Novartis, AstraZeneca, Teva, Pfizer, and Celgene, outside the submitted work. IP received personal fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis, Italfarmaco, Gentili, and Pierre-Fabre. LG received congress travel accomodation from Roche, Daiichi Sankyo, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, Novartis; advisory role for Astra Zeneca outside the submitted work. MMin: Novartis, MSD, Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. LM received personal fees/advisory board from Roche, Novartis, Eisai, and Pfizer, outside the submitted work. EC: Astellas, Roche, BMS, Jansen, MSD, Sirtex, Merck, Bayer, Servier, Novartis, outside the submitted work. PM has/had a consultant/advisory role for BMS, Roche, Genentech, MSD, Novartis, Amgen, Merck Serono, Pierre-Fabre and Incyte, outside the submitted work. PV received speaker fees/advisory boards from Roche, Pfizer, Novartis and Eli Lilly, outside the submitted work. The remaining authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
Disease free survival by nodal status (A), grading (B), Ki67 (C), residual breast disease (D), breast surgery (E) and axillary surgery (F) in 270 patients.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Disease free survival by nodal status (A), grading (B), Ki67 (C), residual breast disease (D), breast surgery (E) and axillary surgery (F) in 129 patients.
Figure 3
Figure 3
Overall survival by nodal status (A), grading (B), Ki67 (C), residual breast disease (D), breast surgery (E) and axillary surgery (F) in 270 patients.
Figure 4
Figure 4
Overall survival by nodal status (A), grading (B), Ki67 (C), residual breast disease (D), breast surgery (E) and axillary surgery (F) in 129 patients.

References

    1. Dawson SJ, Provenzano E, Caldas C. Triple negative breast cancers: clinical and prognostic implications. Eur J Cancer (2009) 45:27–40. doi: 10.1016/S0959-8049(09)70013-9 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Carey LA, Dees EC, Sawyer L, Gatti L, Moore DT, Collichio F, et al. . The triple negative paradox: primary tumor chemosensitivity of breast cancer subtypes. Clin Cancer Res (2007) 13(8):2329–34. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-1109 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dent R, Trudeau M, Pritchard KI, Hanna WM, Kahn HK, Sawka CA, et al. . Triple-negative breast cancer: clinical features and patterns of recurrence. Clin Cancer Res (2007) 13(15 Pt 1):4429–34. doi: 10.1158/1078-0432.CCR-06-3045 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Dent R, Hanna WM, Trudeau M, Rawlinson E, Sun P, Narod SA. Pattern of metastatic spread in triple-negative breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat (2009) 115(2):423–8. doi: 10.1007/s10549-008-0086-2 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Cortazar P, Zhang L, Untch M, Mehta K, Costantino JP, Wolmark N, et al. . Pathological complete response and long-term clinical benefit in breast cancer: the CTNeoBC pooled analysis. Lancet (2014) 384(9938):164–72. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(13)62422-8 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources