This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) eLetters: Submit a response to this article Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Vogel, C. L. Articles by Nabholtz, J.-M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Vogel, C. L. Articles by Nabholtz, J.-M.

Monotherapy of Metastatic Breast Cancer: A Review of Newer Agents

^a Columbia Cancer Research Network of Florida; Sylvester Comprehensive Cancer Center, University of Miami School of Medicine, Aventura, Florida, USA; ^b Northern Alberta Breast Cancer Program; Cross Cancer Institute; University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Correspondence: Charles L. Vogel, M.D., F.A.C.P., 2999 N.E. 191 Street, Suite 200, Aventura, Florida 33180, USA. Telephone: 305-674-3030; Fax: 305-466-9446.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 
Purpose. New agents for the palliative treatment of metastatic breast cancer have emerged in the 1990s. This review summarizes the response rates of these agents with an emphasis on recent findings, such as presentations from the 1998 Meeting of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

Methods. The English medical literature was reviewed to identify clinical trials involving monotherapy for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Three agents—paclitaxel, vinorelbine, and docetaxel—are emphasized because their databases are extensive enough to allow interesting comparisons. Liposomal-encapsulated anthracyclines, losoxantrone, gemcitabine, oral surrogates of continuous-infusion fluorouracil, raltitrexed, LY 231514, edatrexate, topoisomerase I inhibitors, and trastuzumab are reviewed briefly.

Results. Many of the new agents produce response rates approaching or even surpassing those achievable with doxorubicin monotherapy. Compared with older agents, some new agents have improved or at least different safety profiles, and some are easier to administer.

Discussion and conclusions. The new agents offer useful therapeutic options that make them suitable for combining with each other and with older agents, which could result in more effective regimens for metastatic disease, and, ultimately, primary disease in the adjuvant setting. The chemotherapeutic paradigms governing the management of breast cancer for the past three decades are likely to change as we move into the 21st century.

Key Words. Breast neoplasms • Docetaxel • Paclitaxel • Vinorelbine • Review

	Introduction

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 
The modern era of cytotoxic chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer was initiated by the seminal studies of Greenspan et al. [1] and then Cooper [2]. In the late 1970s, combinations of cyclophosphamide, methotrexate, and fluorouracil (CMF), with or without vincristine and with or without prednisone, dominated therapeutic practice for metastatic disease and later as adjuvant therapy [3, 4]. The introduction of doxorubicin [5] and, later, mitoxantrone [6] and epirubicin [7], provided additional options and possible advantages. Generally, however, no further advances in the chemotherapeutic management of metastatic breast cancer occurred for more than two decades. Chemohormonal strategies were investigated but yielded no significant improvement over the sequential use of chemotherapy and hormonal therapy [8]. Early attempts to increase dose intensity improved response rates but not survival [9, 10]. In the late 1980s, many studies compared anthracycline- and CMF-based regimens, but only modest improvements were noted for the anthracyclines [11].

In the 1990s, the paradigm of using established combination chemotherapy [1, 2, 9, 11] is shifting to the dose-dense strategy of sequentially administering single agents, as espoused by Gilewski and Norton [12], and others. The shift is even more dramatic in the United States where dose-intensive chemotherapeutic strategies are used with peripheral blood stem cell support [13, 14], despite the lack of convincing evidence of prolonged overall survival to date [14-17]. The positive results of the phase III trial reported by Bezwoda et al. [18] have caused considerable controversy. The results of additional phase III trials are anxiously awaited.

The 1990s have also been an exciting time for breast cancer new drug development. New agents offer attractive therapeutic options because some induce response rates at least equivalent to those of older agents, have improved safety profiles, or are easier to administer. This article reviews data on the use of new agents as monotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Three new agents—paclitaxel, vinorelbine, and docetaxel—are emphasized because their databases are extensive enough to allow interesting comparisons.

	Paclitaxel

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 
Paclitaxel (Taxol^®) has been investigated for more than 25 years, but it was not until the late 1980s that management and prevention of hypersensitivity reactions allowed more thorough appraisal of this important drug's therapeutic activity [19]. This prototypical taxane is a spindle-active compound that stabilizes the microtubular array of the mitotic spindle. The drug captured the attention of the oncology community and desperate patients in the early 1990s because of significant antitumor activity in ovarian cancer [20]. Paclitaxel also captured the attention of the lay press because its sparse initial supply from the bark of the Pacific yew tree triggered debates regarding the need to balance environmental concerns with human welfare.

First-Line Monotherapy
In the two initial publications involving breast cancer, Reichman et al. [21] and Holmes et al. [22] reported that single-agent paclitaxel provided response rates of approximately 60% in two small series of chemotherapy-naive patients ( Table 1). This response rate was particularly impressive compared with the 43% response rate seen with single-agent doxorubicin in a historical control series [23].

The most commonly used 3-h schedule yielded response rates ranging from 15% to 44% [24-26, 28, 31-33]. A 24-h infusion of 250 mg/m² produced a better response rate (50% versus 40%; p = .02) than the 3-h infusion in the NSABP B-26 Trial [24]. In contrast, the response rates for the 24-h versus 3-h infusions were similar (32% versus 29%; p = .7) when the dose was only 175 mg/m² in patients with previously treated metastatic disease [26]. Collectively, these results demonstrate that the dose and schedule play a combined role, and that the optimal way to use paclitaxel remains uncertain and requires further evaluation.

Paclitaxel was compared with other agents in three large-scale, randomized trials which were presented in 1997. Single-agent paclitaxel appeared to produce results equivalent to those of doxorubicin 60 mg/m² [27], but inferior to those of doxorubicin 75 mg/m² [33], and equivalent to those of CMF plus prednisone [32]. It should be noted, however, that different doses and schedules of paclitaxel were administered in these three trials ( Table 1).

Second-Line Monotherapy
Market research surveys indicate that paclitaxel is the most commonly used agent in the United States after failure of first-line treatment. Seidman et al. [35] reported an impressive response rate of 44% with high-dose paclitaxel infused over 24 h, but response rates have been lower with other doses and schedules ( Table 2) [26, 29, 33, 34,36-44]. In fact, the majority of response rates appear to cluster at 25%. There may be a steep dose-response curve, with differences between the 200- and 250-mg/m² doses using 3-h or 24-h infusions. However, Winer et al. [37] could not detect any significant differences in response rates or survival in a randomized comparison of paclitaxel 250, 210, or 175 mg/m² over 3 h.

Antitumor activity in patients previously exposed to anthracyclines was impressive in two series [35, 40], but response rates were usually more modest, ranging from 16% to 26% in other series [26, 29, 33, 36, 42-44]. Of particular note is the crossover response in the EORTC randomized trial [33] comparing paclitaxel 200 mg/m² by 3-h infusion and doxorubicin 75 mg/m². The response rate was lower upon crossover to paclitaxel than to doxorubicin (13% versus 29%); similar trends were seen regardless of whether patients had primary or secondary resistance. This finding, along with the better response to first-line doxorubicin therapy, led Gamucci et al. [33] to conclude that the preferred sequence for monotherapy is doxorubicin followed by paclitaxel.

Safety
Paclitaxel is generally well tolerated at commonly used dosages, especially 175 mg/m² over 3 h, and with weekly 1-h infusions [47-52]. Nausea and vomiting are generally not clinically significant problems. The hypersensitivity reactions, which hindered the early development of paclitaxel, have been almost totally abrogated by premedication with corticosteroids, diphenhydramine, and ranitidine. Granulocytopenia is dose-dependent; granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF) is usually given prophylactically with paclitaxel 250 mg/m². Thrombocytopenia is rare. Alopecia is essentially universal with the 3-h and 24-h infusions, but less so with the weekly administration schedule.

The most troubling subjective problem is myalgia and arthralgia syndrome, which can be moderately severe at a dose of 250 mg/m², but much less so at 175 mg/m². The pain associated with this syndrome can be a significant problem, especially at higher doses, but pain is self-limited. Neurosensory changes are common at all doses and more frequent with shorter schedules [24], but neuromotor changes are rare to nonexistent at lower doses and usually only mild to moderately severe even at higher doses [26, 29, 35].

Interestingly, Nabholtz et al. [29] reported that 13% to 16% of patients had some degree of edema with paclitaxel. This toxicity is more commonly associated with docetaxel, which will be discussed later in this article.

	Vinorelbine

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 
Vinorelbine (Navelbine^®) has still not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) for breast cancer treatment, despite its good response rates, excellent safety profile, and commercial availability in Europe for this indication. Like paclitaxel, vinorelbine exerts its molecular actions on the mitotic spindle, but like other vinca alkaloids, promotes microtubular depolymerization instead of the stabilization observed with paclitaxel. In contrast with other vinca alkaloids, vinorelbine has greater action on mitotic rather than axonal microtubules, leading to a reduction in the neurotoxicity typically observed with this class of agents [53].

First-Line Monotherapy
As a single agent, first-line vinorelbine produced responses in 35% to 53% of patients with metastatic breast cancer ( Table 3) [54-61]. A comparative trial is needed to determine the relative activity of vinorelbine and paclitaxel, which is the focus of large ongoing phase III trials. In the meantime, the relative consistency of results with vinorelbine at a starting dosage of 30 mg/m²/week across a broad array of phase II trials indicates that it may ultimately be shown to be equipotent to the most commonly used doses in the 3-h schedule of paclitaxel.

Although determination of the relative activity of vinorelbine and paclitaxel awaits completion of randomized phase III trials, the results from phase II trials of previously treated patients appear to be similar for these two agents at the doses and schedules commonly used. Consequently, therapeutic decisions can be made based on other factors, such as safety profiles.

Safety and Relevant Implications
Vinorelbine is well tolerated. Compared with paclitaxel administered every three weeks, vinorelbine produces equivalent myelotoxicity, but weekly paclitaxel may be less myelotoxic than vinorelbine. Although neither vinorelbine nor paclitaxel produce significant nausea, vinorelbine may have a more favorable safety profile because of its relative lack of alopecia and myalgias. Furthermore, the constipation occasionally encountered with vinorelbine is seldom severe, and neurotoxicity beyond grade 1 is also rare. Finally, vinorelbine does not require premedication with dexamethasone.

Vinorelbine's two major drawbacks are injection-site reactions and weekly schedule. The reactions can be completely circumvented by using an implanted venous-access device or partially by using a 6-min to 10-min infusion [72]. The weekly schedule, which is considered a disadvantage for vinorelbine, is being evaluated for both paclitaxel [47-52] and docetaxel [73, 74], resulting in improved safety and tolerability profiles for the two taxanes. Other schedules of vinorelbine, such as the 96-h infusion, do not appear to offer an advantage over the weekly schedule [75].

Single-agent therapy in the elderly is emerging as a major role for vinorelbine. Vogel et al. [60] reported a 38% response rate in 56 women 60 years of age; an additional 16% experienced stable disease for greater than six months for an overall clinical benefit rate of 54%. In 31 women 65 years of age, Buonadonna et al. [76] reported overall response rates of 66% for first-line treatment and 26% for patients who had previously received chemotherapy for metastatic disease. Vinorelbine was extremely well tolerated by elderly patients in both trials. Vogel et al. [77] studied the subjective tolerability of single-agent vinorelbine in 221 patients stratified for age greater or less than 65 years. Toxicity was similar for older and younger patients, with very few grade 3 or 4 subjective side effects, regardless of age. Grade 3 asthenia (15% versus 8%) and constipation (6% versus 3%) occurred slightly more often in the older patients. Less than 15% of all patients reported alopecia; none of the cases were severe. The major side effect, regardless of age, was neutropenia, with similar rates of hospitalizations between younger and older patients (9% and 10%, respectively).

	Docetaxel

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 
Docetaxel's (Taxotere^®) chemical configuration and pharmacologic properties invite comparison with the older taxane, paclitaxel. Docetaxel was originally developed from a renewable resource, the needles of Taxus baccata, and esterified with a chemically synthesized side chain. Docetaxel is formulated in polysorbate 80 (Tween 80^®) and alcohol rather than in polyoxyethylated castor oil (Cremophor^®), which has been implicated in the hypersensitivity reactions associated with paclitaxel. Additional differences are docetaxel's greater potency in cell lines and explanted human tumor cell, higher intracellular accumulation, higher binding to and slower dissociation from microtubules, and slower efflux from tumor cells [78-80].

First-Line Monotherapy
Phase II trial results show that response rates for first-line docetaxel 100 mg/m² consistently approach 60% ( Table 5) [81-86], which appear to exceed the first-line response rates for 3-h and 24-h infusions of paclitaxel at doses <250 mg/m² and, possibly, weekly vinorelbine ( Tables 1 and 3). The response rates for docetaxel were slightly lower at 75 mg/m² [84, 87] than at 100 mg/m².

Second-Line Monotherapy
Docetaxel was initially approved in the United States on the basis of its efficacy in patients with anthracycline-resistant tumors, but is now approved after failure of any chemotherapy. Response rates for second-line docetaxel ranged from 30% to 57% ( Table 6) [85, 88-99]. Some of the lowest response rates were attributable to the use of doses <100 mg/m² in Japan [97, 99] and Europe [98]. Nabholtz et al. [96] also reported lower response rates; however, this randomized trial established the superiority of single-agent docetaxel over the commonly used salvage regimen of mitomycin C and vinblastine in terms of response rate (30% versus 12%; p <.0001), time to progression (19 versus 11 weeks; p = .001) and, most importantly, overall survival time (median 11.4 versus 8.7 months; p = .0097).

Docetaxel appears to be one of the most effective drugs in patients with liver metastases ( Table 7) [81, 84, 85, 88, 91, 98, 100]. Chan et al. [85] reported that docetaxel produced a higher response rate than doxorubicin in patients with liver metastases (54% versus 27%; p <.001). As well, Nabholtz et al. [96] observed greater efficacy with docetaxel versus mitomycin and vinblastine in patients with liver metastases whose disease progressed despite prior anthracycline-containing chemotherapy (33% versus 7%; p <.001). Ironically, the prescribing information for docetaxel indicates that it should "generally not be given" if the bilirubin is greater than the upper limit of normal or if the serum glutamic-oxaloacetic transaminase and/or serum glutamate pyruvate transaminase is 1.5 times the upper limit of normal, concomitant with an alkaline phosphatase level greater than 2.5 times the upper limit of normal. These guidelines were developed because such patients had a 25% decrease in docetaxel clearance and increased risk of severe toxicities [104]. Phase I trials are under way to establish "safe" doses of docetaxel in this setting. In the meantime, the dose of docetaxel should be reduced in patients with altered liver function, although the degree of reduction is still uncertain, and hematologic monitoring should be performed more frequently.

	Combination Chemotherapy with Taxanes or Vinorelbine

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 
An exhaustive review of all possible combinations of available drugs is beyond the scope of this review, but some observations should be noted. Combinations of doxorubicin, with or without cyclophosphamide, and a taxane have been so effective in metastatic disease [108-114] that taxanes have entered clinical trials as adjuvant therapy. Henderson et al. [115] recently reported the early results of a trial suggesting that the sequence of doxorubicin and cyclophosphamide followed by paclitaxel may be superior to doxorubicin plus cyclophosphamide alone; however, the paclitaxel-doxorubicin combination may increase the frequency of stomatitis, myelosuppression [116], and cardiotoxicity [108, 110, 117, 118] because of sequence-dependent pharmacokinetic interactions between doxorubicin and paclitaxel given as a short (3-h) infusion. Results of other studies combining these two agents have not shown an increase in cardiotoxicity [109, 111, 112, 119]. Regardless, combination of these two drugs requires careful scheduling [120], which could reduce the amount of doxorubicin delivered. In contrast, there is no apparent pharmacokinetic interaction between docetaxel and doxorubicin [113, 114] and no evidence of increased cardiotoxicity compared with conventional anthracycline-containing regimens.

Vinorelbine has also been evaluated in combination regimens. Synergy between taxanes and vinorelbine observed in preclinical trials prompted many clinical trials [121-132] which yielded encouraging results. Vinorelbine combined with doxorubicin also produced good response rates, although doxorubicin causes universal alopecia [133-135]. Replacement of doxorubicin may lead to even more tolerable combinations, such as vinorelbine plus epirubicin [136-138], mitoxantrone [139, 140], losoxantrone, or liposomal doxorubicin [141].

Because of its excellent subjective safety profile and lack of alopecia, vinorelbine is being combined with other well-tolerated agents. Good response rates have been achieved with vinorelbine and fluorouracil [89, 142-145]. Drugs that could ultimately replace continuous-infusion fluorouracil, such as capecitabine, UFT (uracil and tegafur), or GW 776C85 plus oral fluorouracil, should be or are being tested. The combination of vinorelbine with another well-tolerated drug, gemcitabine, is promising in lung cancer [146, 147] and is being evaluated in clinical trials of patients with breast cancer.

Finally, the new monoclonal antibody, trastuzumab, increased the activity of paclitaxel in women whose tumors overexpress HER2 in a randomized, phase III trial [148]. This finding, which is addressed later in this review, suggests that new therapeutic options will be incorporated into combination regimens in the near future.

	Liposomal-Encapsulated Anthracyclines

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 
Several liposomal-encapsulated compounds which have been established as effective, safe, and tolerable in patients with AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma [149] are being evaluated in patients with breast cancer. Stewart and Harrington [150] demonstrated that doxorubicin hydrochloride liposome injection (Doxil^®) has prolonged circulation and localizes to tumor tissue. The slow release of doxorubicin mimics continuous-infusion schedules [151] and consequently decreases the usual acute toxicities associated with anthracyclines, such as nausea, vomiting, myelosuppression, vesicant properties, and alopecia [152]. Reduced cardiotoxicity has also been observed. In contrast, new toxicities may appear and, depending on the doses and schedules used, mimic those caused by continuous-infusion schedules of other drugs, such as stomatitis, diarrhea, and palmar-plantar erythrodysplasia [149].

Reported results of Doxil in metastatic breast cancer have been sparse but encouraging [153-156]. Doxil is being evaluated in combination with paclitaxel [117], vinorelbine [141], cyclophosphamide [157], or docetaxel [158]. In fact, reduced cardiotoxicity has been reported for Doxil plus paclitaxel compared with doxorubicin and paclitaxel [117]. Another liposomal-encapsulated compound, TLC D-99, had equivalent efficacy compared with free doxorubicin in phase III trials [159] and reduced cardiotoxicity [160]. Breast cancer studies of liposomal-encapsulated daunorubicin are also in progress [161].

If comparative trials show that these liposome-encapsulated compounds have antitumor activity similar to that of doxorubicin, improved tolerability may encourage their use in place of the parent compound, either in combination or sequential regimens for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, and ultimately in the adjuvant treatment of primary breast cancer. Delayed toxicity, however, may interfere with the ability to incorporate these compounds into dose-dense strategies.

	Losoxantrone

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 
Losoxantrone is a new anthrapyrazole that appears to have increased activity compared with mitoxantrone and a similarly favorable subjective safety profile [162, 163]. As a single agent, losoxantrone was active in 43% [164] and 64% [165] of chemotherapy-naive patients, and in 30% [166] and 63% [165] of women with previously treated metastatic breast cancer. Combination regimens with cyclophosphamide and paclitaxel are being evaluated in clinical trials, which are closed to accrual. The preliminary response rate with combined losoxantrone and paclitaxel in patients with no prior chemotherapy for metastatic disease was 54% compared with 15% for single-agent paclitaxel [28]. If these results are maintained and cardiotoxicity is shown to be less than that with doxorubicin, losoxantrone, like the liposomal-encapsulated anthracyclines, could challenge doxorubicin as the most important new intercalator in breast cancer treatment.

	Gemcitabine

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 
The pyrimidine nucleoside analogs, such as cytosine arabinoside, demonstrate considerable activity in hematologic malignancies but not in solid tumors [167]. Gemcitabine (Gemzar^®) differs from cytosine arabinoside because it achieves higher concentrations and remains longer in tumor cells [168, 169]. Gemcitabine is indicated for the treatment of pancreatic carcinoma and has demonstrated a broad spectrum of antitumor activity against other solid tumors [167].

In trials of patients with breast cancer, gemcitabine produced a response rate of 35% in 14 chemotherapy-naive patients and 19% in 26 patients with one prior chemotherapy exposure [170]. Blackstein et al. [171] established a 37% response rate in chemotherapy-naive patients, whereas Possinger et al. [172] reported a disappointing 18% response rate using a dose and administration schedule similar to those in the preceding two studies. In previously treated patients, Spielmann et al. [173] reported a 28% response rate; however, lower doses produced very poor results in more heavily pretreated patients in an earlier trial conducted in the United States [174].

Gemcitabine clearly has activity in metastatic breast cancer, but the degree of activity needs to be clarified in further clinical trials. Its favorable subjective tolerability profile could make it an excellent palliative agent and a drug suitable for addition to existing combination regimens [175-179].

	Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil and Newer Oral Surrogates

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 
Fluorouracil, one of the oldest antineoplastic agents, has different safety and activity profiles depending on the administration schedule. For example, low-dose continuous infusions may have antitumor activity in patients who have failed bolus infusion [180]. Infusional fluorouracil is highly active in metastatic breast cancer [181-185], is widely used as salvage therapy in Europe, and is gaining popularity in the United States. It is especially useful in patients who have failed high-dose chemotherapy because infusional fluorouracil causes minimal myelosuppression. New oral agents have recently been synthesized to mimic the desirable features of a continuous-infusion schedule and to provide a less cumbersome method of delivery.

Capecitabine
Capecitabine (Xeloda^®) is a thymidylate synthase inhibitor that serves as a pro-drug of fluorouracil. After oral administration and three enzymatic steps for activation, capecitabine produces plasma concentrations of fluorouracil that are comparable to those achieved after protracted continuous infusion of fluorouracil 300 mg/m²/d [186]. Capecitabine appears to produce high concentrations of fluorouracil selectively in tumor tissue in animal models [187] and in human colorectal liver metastases [188]. Capecitabine was recently approved by the FDA for paclitaxel-resistant breast cancer; the response rate is 20% in this setting [189]. Single-agent capecitabine compared favorably with CMF in older women with breast cancer [190] and against single-agent paclitaxel [44]. Additional studies are under way to evaluate combinations of capecitabine with paclitaxel [191], docetaxel [192], and liposomal-encapsulated daunorubicin.

Uracil-Tegafur
Tegafur is an established drug that has been used in Japan as an oral pro-drug to treat metastatic gastrointestinal cancer [193, 194] and, since 1991, as adjuvant therapy [195]. Adding uracil to tegafur increased antitumor activity [196], which led to the development of an oral compound containing tegafur and uracil in a molar ratio of 1:4 (UFT). Orally administered UFT resulted in higher peak plasma levels and a similar AUC compared with protracted i.v. infusion of fluorouracil [197].

Early reports of oral tegafur with or without leucovorin modulation in breast cancer revealed encouraging response rates [198-202]. UFT has been tested as salvage therapy in breast cancer patients [203]. UFT is being evaluated in combination regimens for metastatic breast cancer [204]. Oral UFT, intramuscular methotrexate, and oral leucovorin induced a 38% response rate in patients who had failed autologous stem cell transplantation [205].

GW 776C85, a Dihydropyrimidine Dehydrogenase Inhibitor
GW 776C85 is a potent inactivator of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase [206-208], the first enzyme in the degradative pathway of fluorouracil. Coadministration of GW 776C85 with fluorouracil confers the following advantages: increased bioavailability of oral fluorouracil, dramatically decreased effective dose of fluorouracil, and decreased myelosuppression resulting in a safety profile that is suitable for use in combination regimens.

GW 776C85 plus fluorouracil is being evaluated in patients with colorectal or head and neck cancers and is just beginning to be evaluated in patients with breast cancer. A preliminary response rate of 16% has been reported for this combination in patients with heavily pretreated breast cancer refractory to anthracycline and taxane therapy [209].

	Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors and Folic Acid Antagonists

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 
Thymidylate synthase inhibitors merit consideration despite their more extensive evaluation in gastrointestinal than breast cancer. In addition to capecitabine, which has already been addressed, the two thymidylate synthase inhibitors being evaluated in patients with breast cancer are raltitrexed (Tomudex^®) and LY 231514. Interim results of a phase II trial show that 31% of 36 patients with breast cancer responded to LY 231514, a multitargeted folic acid antagonist [210].

Edatrexate is a novel folic acid antagonist that has shown superior membrane transport and polyglutamation and increased activity in animal tumor models compared with methotrexate [211, 212], and displayed in vitro synergism with drugs such as paclitaxel and docetaxel [213]. Edatrexate has produced impressive response rates of 34% [214] and 41% [215] in phase II clinical trials as a single agent, but it has yet to be widely incorporated into combination chemotherapy regimens for breast cancer.

	Topoisomerase I Inhibitors

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 
Topoisomerase I inhibitors have been approved by the FDA for ovarian cancer (topotecan [Hycamtin^®]) and colon cancer (irinotecan [Camptosar^®]), but have not yet been widely studied in breast cancer [216]. The results of an older trial evaluating irinotecan [217] and two more recent trials with topotecan [218, 219] have not been overly encouraging, although some antitumor activity has been observed in patients with breast cancer.

	Trastuzumab, a Recombinant Monoclonal Antibody

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 
Trastuzumab (Herceptin^®) is a recombinant humanized anti-p185^HER2 monoclonal antibody (rHumAb HER2) that was recently approved for advanced breast cancer as single-agent therapy after failure of standard chemotherapy or in combination with paclitaxel as first-line therapy. Trastuzumab is only indicated for the 25% to 30% of women whose breast cancers amplify the HER2 oncogene, which is associated with overexpression of HER2 protein and was shown to correlate with poor clinical outcome.

The preliminary results of two large-scale clinical trials are impressive. Trastuzumab produced a 15% response rate with a median duration of response of 9.4 months in 222 patients previously treated with one or two prior chemotherapy regimens [220], which compares favorably with the duration of response associated with paclitaxel [28, 29, 36, 39, 43] or vinorelbine [68, 69]. In fact, some of the responses to trastuzumab were quite durable and lasted more than two years in the large phase II trial. One patient, who was enrolled in an earlier trial and had soft tissue metastasis, remains in complete remission, having received the antibody for more than six years (Larry Norton, M.D., personal communication). In the other large-scale trial [148], adding trastuzumab to doxorubicin (and cyclophosphamide) or paclitaxel significantly improved the objective response rate (62% versus 36%; p <.01) and prolonged the time to disease progression (8.6 versus 5.5 months; p <.001) compared with chemotherapy alone.

Cardiotoxicity is an unexpected adverse effect of trastuzumab. The risk is greater in patients who receive the combination of doxorubicin, cyclophosphamide, and antibody compared with chemotherapy alone [148]. The pathogenesis of this interaction is poorly understood. Otherwise, the subjective safety profile has been favorable [148, 220]. Aside from fever and chills, which generally occur only with the first dose of drug, toxicities have been rare. Patient tolerability and acceptance have been excellent, because the antibody is not associated with alopecia, significant gastrointestinal problems, or myelosuppression.

	Conclusions

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 
New chemotherapeutic agents are challenging the role of established compounds in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Docetaxel is beginning to emerge as the most effective single agent for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer, potentially surpassing doxorubicin. Paclitaxel, at standard dose ranging up to 225 mg/m² over 3 h, appears to be less active than docetaxel, both as first-line therapy and in patients with anthracycline-resistant cancer. Answers to questions regarding whether the well-tolerated weekly administration of paclitaxel will be superior to the 3-h and 24-h schedules require maturation of ongoing clinical trials.

Vinorelbine is a very well-tolerated drug that is underutilized in the United States in patients with breast cancer, probably because of lack of FDA approval and the perception that it is inferior to paclitaxel. Phase II trials indicate that first-line vinorelbine is at least as effective as first-line paclitaxel at standard doses and schedules. Response rates in second-line chemotherapy appear to have overlapping confidence intervals. The primary differences between the two agents are their safety profiles. Vinorelbine appears to be associated with reduced alopecia and neurotoxicity compared with paclitaxel given by 3-h infusions every three weeks. On the other hand, weekly paclitaxel has less myelotoxicity and fewer infusion site reactions than vinorelbine.

Liposomal-encapsulated anthracyclines, losoxantrone, gemcitabine, capecitabine, UFT, GW 776C85 plus fluorouracil, raltitrexed, LY 231514, and edatrexate also have significant activity in metastatic breast cancer; but topoisomerase I inhibitors appear to be less active. Trastuzumab has unequivocal antitumor activity in women whose tumors overexpress the oncogene, both as a single agent and in combination with cytotoxic chemotherapy. Trastuzumab is likely to become an important new agent because of its activity and lack of subjective toxicity in most patients. Finally, combinations of the previously mentioned drugs with each other and with older, effective agents will most likely result in improved outcomes in metastatic breast cancer and, ultimately, in the adjuvant setting as we move into the 21st century.

	Acknowledgments

 
This review was sponsored, in part, by Glaxo Wellcome Inc., Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.

	References

Top Abstract Introduction Paclitaxel Vinorelbine Docetaxel Combination Chemotherapy with... Liposomal-Encapsulated... Losoxantrone Gemcitabine Continuous-Infusion Fluorouracil... Thymidylate Synthase Inhibitors... Topoisomerase I Inhibitors Trastuzumab, a Recombinant... Conclusions References

 

1. Greenspan EM, Fieber M, Lesnick G et al. Response of advanced breast carcinoma to the combination of the antimetabolite, methotrexate, and the alkylating agent, thio-TEPA. J Mt Sinai Hosp 1963 ; 30 : 246 -267.
2. Cooper RG. Combination chemotherapy in hormone resistant breast cancer. Proc Am Assoc Cancer Res 1969 ; 10 : 15a .
3. Canellos GP, DeVita VT, Gold GL et al. Cyclical combination chemotherapy for advanced breast carcinoma. Br Med J 1974 ; 1 :218 -220.
4. Bonadonna G. Evolving concepts in the systemic adjuvant treatment of breast cancer. Cancer Res 1992 ; 52 :2127 -2137.[Free Full Text]
5. Ahmann DL, Bisel HF, Eagan RT et al. Controlled evaluation of adriamycin (NSC-123127) in patients with disseminated breast cancer. Cancer Chemother Rep 1974 ; 58 :877 -882.[Medline]
6. Stuart-Harris RC, Smith IE. Mitoxantrone: a phase II study in the treatment of patients with advanced breast carcinoma and other solid tumours. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1982 ; 8 :179 -182.[Medline]
7. Brambilla C, Rossi A, Bonfante V et al. Phase II study of doxorubicin versus epirubicin in advanced breast cancer. Cancer Treat Rep 1986 ; 70 :261 -266.[Medline]
8. Lippman ME. Efforts to combine endocrine and chemotherapy in the management of breast cancer: do two and two equal three? Breast Cancer Res Treat 1983 ; 3 :117 -127.[Medline]
9. Hortobagyi GN, Buzdar AU, Bodey GP et al. High-dose induction chemotherapy of metastatic breast cancer in protected environment: a prospective randomized study. J Clin Oncol 1987 ; 5 :178 -184.[Abstract]
10. Honig SF. Treatment of metastatic disease. In: Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M et al., eds. Diseases of the Breast. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996:669-734.
11. A'Hern RP, Smith IE, Ebbs SR. Chemotherapy and survival in advanced breast cancer: the inclusion of doxorubicin in Cooper type regimens. Br J Cancer 1993 ; 67 :801 -805.[Medline]
12. Gilewski T, Norton L. Cytokinetics and breast cancer chemotherapy. In: Harris JR, Lippman ME, Morrow M et al., eds. Diseases of the Breast. Philadelphia: Lippincott-Raven Publishers, 1996:751-768.
13. Peters WP, Shpall EJ, Jones RB et al. High-dose combination alkylating agents with bone marrow support as initial treatment for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1988 ; 6 :1368 -1376.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
14. Antman KH, Rowlings PA, Vaughan WP et al. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous hematopoietic stem-cell support for breast cancer in North America. J Clin Oncol 1997 ; 15 :1870 -1879.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
15. Eddy DM. High-dose chemotherapy with autologous bone marrow transplantation for the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1992 ; 10 :657 -670.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
16. Canellos GP. High dose therapy: here to stay or just visiting? J Clin Oncol 1994 ; 12 :5 -6.[Medline]
17. Kennedy MJ. High-dose chemotherapy of breast cancer: is the question answered? J Clin Oncol 1995 ; 13 :2477 -2479.[Medline]
18. Bezwoda WR, Seymour L, Dansey RD. High-dose chemotherapy with hematopoietic rescue as primary treatment for metastatic breast cancer: a randomized trial. J Clin Oncol 1995 ; 13 :2483 -2489.[Abstract]
19. Rowinsky EK, Cazenave LA, Donehower RC. Taxol: a novel investigational antimicrobule agent. J Natl Cancer Inst 1990 ; 82 :1247 -1259.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
20. McGuire WP, Rowinsky EK, Rosenshein NB et al. Taxol: a unique antineoplastic agent with significant activity in advanced ovarian epithelial neoplasms. Ann Intern Med 1989 ; 111 :273 -279.
21. Reichman BS, Seidman AD, Crown JP et al. Paclitaxel and recombinant human granulocyte colony-stimulating factor as initial chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1993 ; 11 :1943 -1951.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
22. Holmes FA, Walters RS, Theriault RL et al. Phase II trial of Taxol: an active drug in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. J Natl Cancer Inst 1991 ; 83 :1797 -1805.[Free Full Text]
23. Henderson IC. Chemotherapy for metastatic disease. In: Harris JR, Hellman S, Henderson IC et al., eds. Breast Disease. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1991:604-665.
24. Mamounas E, Brown A, Smith R et al. Effect of Taxol duration of infusion in advanced breast cancer (ABC): results from NSABP B-26 trial comparing 3- to 24-hour infusion of high-dose Taxol. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :101a .
25. Mamounas E, Brown A, Fisher B et al. 3-hour (hr) high-dose Taxol (T) infusion in advanced breast cancer (ABC): an NSABP Phase II study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1995 ; 14 :127a .
26. Seidman AD, Tiersten A, Hudis C et al. Phase II trial of paclitaxel by 3-hour infusion as initial and salvage chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995 ; 13 :2575 -2581.[Abstract]
27. Sledge GW, Neuberg D, Ingle J et al. Phase III trial of doxorubicin (A) vs. paclitaxel (T) vs. doxorubicin + paclitaxel (A+T) as first-line therapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC): an intergroup trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :1a .
28. Kaufman PA, Harris R, Skillings J et al. Losoxantrone + paclitaxel versus paclitaxel alone as first line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC): final results of a phase III randomized trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :124a .
29. Nabholtz JM, Gelmon K, Bontenbal M et al. Multicenter, randomized comparative study of two doses of paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996 ; 14 :1858 -1867.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
30. Swain S, Honig S, Walton L. Phase II trial of paclitaxel (Taxol^®) as first line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1995 ; 14 :132a .
31. Bonneterre J, Tubiana-Hulin M, Chollet P et al. Taxol^® (paclitaxel) 225 mg/m² by 3-hour infusion without G-CSF as a first line therapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :128a .
32. Bishop JF, Dewar J, Tattersall MHN et al. Taxol^® (paclitaxel) alone is equivalent to CMFP combination chemotherapy as frontline treatment in metastatic breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :153a .
33. Gamucci T, Piccart M, Brüning P et al. Single agent Taxol (T) versus doxorubicin (D) as first-line chemotherapy (CT) in advanced breast cancer (ABC). Final results of an EORTC randomized study with crossover. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :111a .
34. Peretz T, Sulkes A, Chollet P et al. A multicenter, randomized study of two schedules of paclitaxel (PTX) in patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Eur J Cancer 1995 ; 31(suppl 5) :S75a .
35. Seidman AD, Reichman BS, Crown JP et al. Paclitaxel as second and subsequent therapy for metastatic breast cancer: activity independent of prior anthracycline exposure. J Clin Oncol 1995 ; 13 :1152 -1159.[Abstract]
36. Vermorken J, ten Bokkel Huinink WW, Mandjes IAM et al. High-dose paclitaxel in patients with advanced breast cancer refractory to anthracycline therapy: a European Cancer Centre trial. Semin Oncol 1995 ; 22(suppl 8) :16 -22.[Medline]
37. Winer E, Berry D, Duggan E et al. Failure of higher dose paclitaxel to improve outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer—results from CALGB 9342. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :101a .
38. Holmes FA, Valero V, Buzdar AU et al. Final results: randomized Phase III trial of paclitaxel by 3-hr versus 96-hr infusion in patients (pts) with met breast cancer (MBC). The long and short of it. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :110a .
39. Geyer CE Jr, Green SJ, Moinpour C et al. A phase II trial of paclitaxel in patients with metastatic refractory carcinoma of the breast: a Southwest Oncology Group (SWOG) study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :107a .
40. Gianni L, Munzone E, Capri G et al. Paclitaxel in metastatic breast cancer: a trial of two doses by a 3-hr infusion in patients with disease recurrence after prior therapy with anthracyclines. J Natl Cancer Inst 1995 ; 87 :1169 -1175.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
41. Abrams JS, Vena DA, Baltz J et al. Paclitaxel activity in heavily pretreated breast cancer: a National Cancer Institute Treatment Referral Center trial. J Clin Oncol 1995 ; 13 :2056 -2065.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
42. Cognetti F, Aloe A, Nardi M et al. Low activity of paclitaxel (PT) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) resistant to anthracyclines (A). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :140a .
43. Dieras V, Marty M, Tubiana N et al. Phase II randomized study of paclitaxel versus mitomycin in advanced breast cancer. Semin Oncol 1995 ; 22(suppl 8) :33 -39.
44. O'Reilly SM, Moiseyenko V, Talbot DC et al. A randomized phase II study of Xeloda^TM (capecitabine) vs paclitaxel in breast cancer patients failing previous anthracycline therapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :163a .
45. Wilson WH, Berg SL, Bryant G et al. Paclitaxel in doxorubicin-refractory or mitoxantrone-refractory breast cancer: a phase I/II trial of 96-hour infusion. J Clin Oncol 1994 ; 12 :1621 -1629.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
46. Seidman AD, Hochhauser D, Gollub M et al. Ninety-six hour paclitaxel infusion after progression during short taxane exposure: a phase II pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study in metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996 ; 14 :1877 -1884.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
47. Hainsworth JD, Greco FA. Paclitaxel administered by 1-hour infusion. Preliminary results of a phase I/II trial comparing two schedules. Cancer 1994 ; 74 :1377 -1382.[Medline]
48. Seidman AD, Murphy B, Hudis C et al. Activity of Taxol® (T) by weekly 1 hour infusion in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC): a phase II and pharmacologic study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :148a .
49. Seidman AD, Hudis CA, Raptis G et al. Paclitaxel for breast cancer: the Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center experience. Oncology 1997 ; 11(suppl 2) :20 -28.[Medline]
50. Sikov W, Akerley W, Strenger R et al. Weekly high-dose paclitaxel (P) demonstrates significant activity in advanced breast cancer (BC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :112a .
51. Asbury R, Chang A, Boros L et al. Weekly moderate-dose paclitaxel (P) in advanced breast cancer (ABC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :127a .
52. Sola C, Lluch A, García-Conde J et al. Phase II study of weekly paclitaxel (P) in recurrent breast cancer after high-dose chemotherapy (HDC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :174a .
53. Fellous A, Ohayon R, Vacassin T et al. Biochemical effects of Navelbine on tubulin and associated proteins. Semin Oncol 1989 ; 16(suppl 4) :9 -14.
54. Canobbio L, Boccardo F, Pastorino G et al. Phase-II study of Navelbine^® in advanced breast cancer. Semin Oncol 1989 ; 16(suppl 4) :33 -36.[Medline]
55. Garcia-Conde J, Lluch A, Martin M et al. Phase II trial of weekly IV vinorelbine in first-line advanced breast cancer chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 1994 ; 5 :854 -857.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
56. Twelves CJ, Dobbs NA, Curnow A et al. A phase II, multicentre, UK study of vinorelbine in advanced breast cancer. Br J Cancer 1994 ; 70 :990 -993.[Medline]
57. Bruno S, Puerto VL, Mickiewicz E et al. Phase II trial of weekly i.v. vinorelbine as a single agent in first-line advanced breast cancer chemotherapy: the Latin-American experience. Am J Clin Oncol 1995 ; 18 :392 -396.[Medline]
58. Fumoleau P, Delgado FM, Delozier T et al. Phase II trial of weekly intravenous vinorelbine as first-line advanced breast cancer chemotherapy. J Clin Oncol 1993 ; 11 :1245 -1252.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
59. Romero A, Rabinovich MG, Vallejo CT et al. Vinorelbine as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast carcinoma. J Clin Oncol 1994 ; 12 :336 -341.[Abstract]
60. Vogel C, O'Rourke M, Winer E et al. A clinical trial of intravenous (IV) Navelbine (NVB) (vinorelbine tartrate) for first line treatment of women 60 years of age with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :101a .
61. Weber BL, Vogel C, Jones S et al. Intravenous vinorelbine as first-line and second-line therapy in advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995 ; 13 :2722 -2730.[Abstract]
62. Ranuzzi M, Nisticò C, Garufi C et al. Vinorelbine (VNR) in weekly schedule with G-CSF in patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :125a .
63. Toussaint C, Izzo J, Spielmann M et al. Phase I/II trial of continuous infusion vinorelbine for advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1994 ; 12 :2102 -2112.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
64. Gasparini G, Caffo O, Barni S et al. Vinorelbine is an active antiproliferative agent in pretreated advanced breast cancer patients: a phase II study. J Clin Oncol 1994 ; 12 :2094 -2101.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
65. Alvarez A, Mickiewicz E, Caceres V et al. Vinorelbine (NVB) activity in heavily pretreated breast cancer (BC) patients (PTS). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :146a .
66. Extra J-M, Leandri S, Dieras V et al. Phase II study of vinorelbine in first and second-line treatment of advanced breast cancer, Navelbine update and new trends. Ed P Solal Celigny, John Libby Eurotext 1991:213-220.
67. Livingston RB, Ellis GK, Gralow JR et al. Dose-intensive vinorelbine with concurrent granulocyte colony-stimulating factor support in paclitaxel-refractory metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997 ; 15 :1395 -1400.[Abstract]
68. Degardin M, Bonneterre J, Hecquet B et al. Vinorelbine (Navelbine) as a salvage treatment for advanced breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1994 ; 5 :423 -426.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
69. Jones S, Winer E, Vogel C et al. Randomized comparison of vinorelbine and melphalan in anthracycline-refractory advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995 ; 13 :2567 -2574.[Abstract]
70. Robertson JF, Williams MR, Todd J et al. Factors predicting the response of patients with advanced breast cancer to endocrine (Megace^®) therapy. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1989 ; 25 :469 -475.[Medline]
71. Howell A, Mackintosh J, Jones M et al. The definition of the "no change" category in patients treated with endocrine therapy and chemotherapy for advanced carcinoma of the breast. Eur J Cancer Clin Oncol 1988 ; 24 :1567 -1572.[Medline]
72. Rittenberg CN, Gralla RJ, Rehmeyer TA. Assessing and managing venous irritation associated with vinorelbine tartrate (Navelbine). Oncol Nurs Forum 1995 ; 22 :707 -710.[Medline]
73. Hainsworth JD, Greco FA. Phase I trial of weekly docetaxel in patients with advanced refractory cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1997 ; 46 :59a .
74. Löffler TM, Freund W, Dröge C et al. Activity of weekly Taxotere^® (TXT) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :113a .
75. Ibrahim NK, Willey J, Rahman Z et al. Phase II study of vinorelbine (VNR) by 96-hour (H) continuous infusion (CI) for patients (PTS) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :113a .
76. Buonadonna A, Crivellari D, Frustaci S et al. Vinorelbine (VRL) as palliative treatment in elderly patients with metastatic breast cancer. Breast Cancer Res Treat 1997 ; 46 :96a .
77. Vogel CL, O'Rourke M, Weber B et al. The safety of IV Navelbine^® in elderly patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Breast Cancer Res Treat 1994 ; 32 :36a .
78. Verweij J, Clavel M, Chevalier B. Paclitaxel (Taxol) and docetaxel (Taxotere): not simply two of a kind. Ann Oncol 1994 ; 5 :495 -505.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
79. Bissery MC, Nohynek G, Sanderink GJ et al. Docetaxel (Taxotere): a review of preclinical and clinical experience. Part I: preclinical experience. Anti-Cancer Drugs 1995 ; 6:339-355 , 363 -368.
80. Cortes JE, Pazdur R. Docetaxel. J Clin Oncol 1995 ; 13 :2643 -2655.[Abstract]
81. Chevallier B, Fumoleau P, Kerbrat P et al. Docetaxel is a major cytotoxic drug for the treatment of advanced breast cancer: a phase II trial of the Clinical Screening Cooperative Group of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995 ; 13 :314 -322.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
82. Fumoleau P, Chevallier B, Kerbrat P et al. A multicentre phase II study of the efficacy and safety of docetaxel as first-line treatment of advanced breast cancer: report of the Clinical Screening Group of the EORTC. Ann Oncol 1996 ; 7 :165 -171.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
83. Krakowski I, Rios M, Fumoleau P et al. Phase II first line chemotherapy (CT) study with docetaxel (Taxotere^®) and prophylactic premedication of fluid retention (FR) in patients (pts) with metastatic (mts) or locally advanced breast cancer (ABC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1995 ; 14 :97a .
84. Trudeau ME, Eisenhauer EA, Higgins BP et al. Docetaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer: a phase II study of the National Cancer Institute of Canada—Clinical Trials Group. J Clin Oncol 1996 ; 14 :422 -428.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
85. Chan S, Friedrichs K, Noël D et al. A randomized phase III study of Taxotere^® (T) versus doxorubicin (D) in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who have failed an alkylating containing regimen. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 ;154a .
86. Hudis CA, Seidman AD, Crown JP et al. Phase II and pharmacologic study of docetaxel as initial chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996 ; 14 :58 -65.[Abstract]
87. Dieras V, Fumoleau P, Chevalier B et al. Second EORTC clinical screening group phase II trial of Taxotere (docetaxel) as first-line chemotherapy in advanced breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1994 ; 13 :78a .
88. Ravdin PM, Burris HA III, Cook G et al. Phase II trial of docetaxel in advanced anthracycline-resistant or anthracenedione-resistant breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995 ; 13 :2879 -2885.[Abstract]
89. Bonneterre J, Roche H, Monnier A et al. Taxotere^® (TXT) versus 5-fluorouracil + Navelbine^® (FUN) as second-line chemotherapy (CT) in patients (pts) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) (preliminary results). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :162a .
90. Vorobiof DA, Chasen MR, Moeken R. Phase II trial of single agent docetaxel in previously treated patients (pts) with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :130a .
91. Valero V, Holmes FA, Walters RS et al. Phase II trial of docetaxel: a new, highly effective antineoplastic agent in the management of patients with anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1995 ; 13 :2886 -2894.[Abstract]
92. Terzoli E, Nisticò C, Garufi C et al. Docetaxel in advanced breast carcinoma (MBC) patients (PTS) pre-treated with anthracyclines. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :177a .
93. Sjöström J, Mouridsen H, Pluzanska A et al. Taxotere (T) versus methotrexate-5 fluorouracil (MF) in patients with advanced anthracycline-resistant breast cancer: preliminary results of a randomized phase III study by Scandinavian Breast Cancer Group. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :111a .
94. Vici P, Conti F, Di Lauro L et al. Single-agent docetaxel as salvage treatment in anthracycline-refractory breast cancer patients. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :179a .
95. VanOosteram AT, Dieras V, Tubianna-Hulin M et al. Taxotere^® (T) in previously treated patients (PTS) with metastatic breast carcinoma (MBC): stratification for anthracycline resistance (AR). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :141a .
96. Nabholtz JM, Thuerlimann B, Beswoda WR et al. Taxotere^® (T) improves survival over mitomycin C vinblastine (MV) in patients (PTS) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who have failed an anthracycline (ANT) containing regimen: final results of a phase III randomized trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :101a .
97. Taguchi T, Adachi I, Enomoto K et al. Docetaxel (RP56976) in advanced or recurrent breast cancer: early and late phase II clinical studies in Japan. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1994 ; 13 :87a .
98. Piccart MJ, Klijn J, Paridaens R et al. Corticosteroids significantly delay the onset of docetaxel-induced fluid retention: final results of a randomized study of the European Organization for Research and Treatment of Cancer Investigational Drug Branch for Breast Cancer. J Clin Oncol 1997 ; 15 :3149 -3155.[Abstract]
99. Tominaga S, Suzumura N. Activity of Taxotere^® (T) in Japanese patients with anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :178a .
100. Trandafir L, Chahine A, Spielman N et al. Efficacy of Taxotere (TXT) in advanced breast cancer (ABC) patients (PTS) not eligible for further anthracyclines (ANT). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :105a .
101. Alexandre J, Misset JL, Viens P et al. Antitumoral efficacy of Taxotere^® (TX) in women with anthracycline (ANT) mitoxantrone (MX) resistant (ARD) or contraindicated (ANTC) advanced breast cancer (ABC) from the French Extended Access Program. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :157a .
102. Leonard RCF, O'Brien M, Barrett-Lee P et al. Analysis of covariance of 331 advanced breast cancer cases for factors predictive of response to Taxotere^®. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :147a .
103. Valero V, Burris HA III, Jones SE et al. Multicenter pilot study of Taxotere in taxol-resistant metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :107a .
104. Klink-Alakl M, Riva A, Bruno R et al. Taxotere^® (T) safety profile in patients (pts) with liver metastases with or without impaired liver function. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :220a .
105. Pujade-Lauraine E, Brun B, Maurel A et al. Pathophysiology and management of docetaxel-induced fluid retention. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :166a .
106. Ravdin P, Valero V, Nabholtz J-M et al. Efficacy of a 5-day corticosteroid premedication in ameliorating Taxotere^® induced fluid retention. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :115a .
107. Riva A, Fumoleau P, Roché H et al. Efficacy and safety of different corticosteroid (C) premedications (P) in breast cancer (BC) patients (pts) treated with Taxotere^® (T). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :188a .
108. Gianni L, Munzone E, Capri G et al. Paclitaxel by 3-hour infusion in combination with bolus doxorubicin in women with untreated metastatic breast cancer: high antitumor efficacy and cardiac effects in a dose-finding and sequence-finding study. J Clin Oncol 1995 ; 13 :2688 -2699.[Abstract]
109. Gianni L, Capri G, Tarenzi E et al. Efficacy and cardiac effects of 3-H paclitaxel (P) plus bolus doxorubicin (DOX) in women with untreated metastatic breast carcinoma. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :116a .
110. Dombernowsky P, Gehl J, Boesgaard M et al. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel, a highly active combination in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Semin Oncol 1996 ; 23(suppl 11) :23 -27.[Medline]
111. Amadori D, Frassineti GL. Doxorubicin and paclitaxel (sequential combination) in the treatment of breast cancer. Oncology 1997 ; 11(suppl 3) :30 -33.
112. Schwartsmann G, Mans DR, Menke CH et al. A phase II study of doxorubicin/paclitaxel plus G-CSF for metastatic breast cancer. Oncology 1997 ; 11(suppl 3) :24 -29.[Medline]
113. Nabholtz J-M, Mackey JR, Smylie M et al. Phase II study of Taxotere (docetaxel), doxorubicin (Dx) and cyclophosphamide (CTX) (TAC) in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :148a .
114. Bozec I, Nabholtz J-M, Dieras V et al. Docetaxel (D) in combination with doxorubicin (Dx) (AT) and with cyclophosphamide (CTX) (TAC) as first-line chemotherapy (CT) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC): high activity and absence of cardiotoxicity. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :163a .
115. Henderson IC, Berry D, Demetri G et al. Improved disease-free (DFS) and overall survival (OS) from the addition of sequential paclitaxel (T) but not from the escalation of doxorubicin (D) dose level in the adjuvant chemotherapy of patients (pts) with node positive primary breast cancer (BC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :101a (abstract 390).
116. Holmes FA, Madden T, Neuman RA et al. Sequence-dependent alteration of doxorubicin pharmacokinetics by paclitaxel in a phase I study of paclitaxel and doxorubicin in patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1996 ; 14 :2713 -2721.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
117. Moore MR, Srinivasiah J, Feinberg BA et al. Phase II randomized trial of doxorubicin plus paclitaxel (AT) versus doxorubicin HCl liposome injection (Doxil^®) plus paclitaxel (DT) in metastatic breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :160a .
118. Ojeda B, Lluch A, Barnadas A et al. A multicenter phase II study of escalating doses of paclitaxel in combination with a fixed dose of doxorubicin as first line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :163a .
119. Gianni L, Dombernowsky P, Sledge G et al. Cardiac function following combination therapy with Taxol^® (T) and doxorubicin (A) for advanced breast cancer (ABC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :115a .
120. Gianni L, Viganò L, Locatelli A. Different interference of paclitaxel (PTX) on human pharmacokinetics of doxorubicin (DOX) and epirubicin (EPI). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :224a .
121. Jaremtchuk A, Matwiejuk M, Polera O et al. Feasibility study of the combination Navelbine^® (N) and paclitaxel (PCL) in advanced breast cancer (ABC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :175a .
122. Romero Acuña L, Langhi M, Pérez J et al. Vinorelbine (VNB) and paclitaxel (PTX) as first-line chemotherapy (FLC) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :188a .
123. Weiselberg L, Budman DR, O'Mara V. Phase I trial of sequential vinorelbine-paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer: early evidence of tolerability and efficacy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :97a .
124. Fumoleau P, Delecroix V, Perrocheau G et al. Docetaxel (D) in combination with vinorelbine (V) as 1st line CT in PTS with metastatic breast cancer (MBC): final results. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :142a .
125. Botto HG, Botto ME, Otegui ML et al. Taxotere (TXT) vs vinorelbine and taxol (VIN-TAX) in patients (PTS) with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) anthracycline resistance. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :130a .
126. Culine S, Roch I, Pinguet F. Combination paclitaxel and vinorelbine therapy: in vitro cytotoxic interactions and dose-escalation study in patients with anthracycline-resistant metastatic breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :135a .
127. Deplanque G, Duclos B, Limqacher JM et al. Doxorubicin, docetaxel and vinorelbine (ATN) with G-CSF support in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer (MBC): a pilot study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :138a .
128. Ellis GK, Gralow JR, Pierce HI et al. Paclitaxel/vinorelbine (TV) chemotherapy with concurrent G-CSF for metastatic breast cancer (MBC): phase I-II study in doxorubicin-treated patients (PTS). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :138a .
129. Escudero P, Bueso P, Mayordomo JI et al. Doxetaxel + vinorelbine is an active combination for patients with anthracycline-refractory metastatic breast cancer. Results of a phase II trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :139a .
130. Gardin G, Pronzato P, Tognoni A et al. A phase II trial of vinorelbine (V) and paclitaxel (P) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) who have failed prior anthracycline containing chemotherapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :142a .
131. Martin M, Garcia Carbonerao I, Lluch A et al. Paclitaxel plus vinorelbine: an active regimen in metastatic breast cancer patients with prior anthracycline exposure. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :158a .
132. Romero Acuña L, Langhi M, Pérez J et al. Vinorelbine (VNB) and paclitaxel (PTX) as first-line chemotherapy (FLC) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC): final results. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :171a .
133. Vogel CL, Penta JS, Hohneker JA. Navelbine^® (vinorelbine tartrate) combination chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. Cancer Invest 1995 ; 14 :44 -45a.
134. Norris B, Pritchard K, James K et al. A phase III comparative study of vinorelbine (VNB) combined with doxorubicin (DOX) versus doxorubicin alone in metastatic/recurrent breast cancer (MBC). a National Cancer Institute of Canada study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :98a .
135. Vorobiof D, Goedhals L, Barnardt P et al. Phase II study of IV Navelbine^® (NVB) and doxorubicin (DOX) in previously untreated advanced breast cancer (ABC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :197a .
136. Nisticò C, Garufi C, Pace R et al. Weekly epirubicin (EPI) and vinorelbine (VNR) plus G-CSF in metastatic breast cancer (MBC): high activity with a 75% survival rate at two years. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :185a .
137. Nisticò C, de Matteis A, Valenza R et al. Epirubicin (EPI) and vinorelbine (VNR): a new promising combination for primary systemic chemotherapy for breast cancer patients (PTS). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :162a .
138. Tabiadon D, Zonato C, Frontini L et al. Multicentric phase II study with vinorelbine (VNB) and epirubicin (EPI) as first line chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Preliminary data. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :176a .
139. Vogel CL. Combination chemotherapy with vinorelbine (Navelbine) and mitoxantrone for metastatic breast cancer: a review. Semin Oncol 1995 ; 22(suppl 5) :61 -65.[Medline]
140. Namer M, Soler-Michel P, Turpin F et al. Prospective randomized study comparing mitoxantrone (M) and vinorelbine (V) with fluorouracil (F), epirubicin (E) or Adriamycin^® (A) and cyclophosphamide (C) in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :149a .
141. Ramirez MR, Marcom PK, Sutton LM et al. A phase I/II study of Doxil and vinorelbine in metastatic breast cancer patients. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :169a .
142. Vogel CL, Hochster H, Blumenreich M et al. A US multicenter phase II study of IV Navelbine (NVB) and 5-fluorouracil (5FU) as first line treatment of patients with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1995 ; 14 :91a .
143. Dieras V, Pierga J-Y, Extra J-M et al. Results of a combination of Navelbine (NVB) and Fluoro-Uracil (FU) in advanced breast cancer (ABC) with a group sequential design (GSD). Ann Oncol 1992 ; 3(suppl 5) :46a .
144. Nolè F, de Braud F, Munzone E et al. Phase I/II study of vinorelbine (VRLB) in combination with 5-fluorouracil and folinic acid (FUFA) in metastatic breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :185a .
145. Anderson N, Lokich J, Bern M et al. Continuous venous infusion 5-fluororacil [CVI-FU] with weekly vinorelbine [V] in chemoresistant metastatic breast cancer [MBC]: a pilot study. Proc Am Soc Clin Onc 1998 ; 17 :126a .
146. Krajnik G, Mohn-Staudner A, Marhold F et al. Vinorelbine/gemcitabine in advanced non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC): a phase I trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :206a .
147. Rodier JM, Chouaki N, Schlumberger M et al. Gemcitabine (GEM) and vinorelbine (VNB) in solid tumors. Preliminary results of a phase I study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :249a .
148. Slamon D, Leyland-Jones B, Shak S et al. Addition of Herceptin^TM (humanized anti-HER2 antibody) to first line chemotherapy for HER2 overexpressing metastatic breast cancer (HER2+/MBC) markedly increases anticancer activity: a randomized, multinational controlled phase III trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :98a .
149. Northfelt DW. Liposomal anthracycline chemotherapy in the treatment of AIDS-related Kaposi's sarcoma. Oncology 1997 ; 11(suppl 11) :21 -32.
150. Stewart S, Harrington KJ. The biodistribution and pharmacokinetics of stealth liposomes in patients with solid tumors. Oncology 1997 ; 11(suppl 11) :33 -37.
151. Martin FJ. Pegylated liposomal doxorubicin: scientific rationale and preclinical pharmacology. Oncology 1997 ; 11(suppl 11) :11 -20.
152. Alberts DS, Garcia DJ. A safety review of pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in the treatment of various malignancies. Oncology 1997 ; 11(suppl 11) :54 -62.
153. Gabizon A, Uziely B, Lotem M et al. Doxil^® in patients with pretreated metastatic breast cancer (MBC): a dose-schedule finding study with pharmacokinetics. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :147a .
154. Jahanzeb M, Frankel C, Elkersh M et al. Rationale for trials studying pegylated liposomal doxorubicin in metastatic breast cancer. Oncology 1997 ; 11(suppl 11) :45 -53.[Medline]
155. Lyass O, Uziely B, Heching NI et al. Doxil^® in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) after prior chemotherapy: therapeutic results in two consecutive studies. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :156a .
156. Ranson MR, Carmichael J, O'Byrne K et al. Treatment of advanced breast cancer with sterically stabilized liposomal doxorubicin: results of a multicenter phase II trial. J Clin Oncol 1997 ; 15 :3185 -3191.[Abstract]
157. Holder L, Overmoyer B, Silverman P et al. Doxil^® and oral cyclophosphamide as first-line therapy for patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC): preliminary results of a pilot trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :146a .
158. Malik UR, Sparano JA, Wolffe A. Phase I trial of liposomal doxorubicin (Doxil) and docetaxel (Taxotere) in patients (PTS) with advanced breast cancer (ABC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :175a .
159. Harris L, Winer E, Batist G et al. Phase III study of TLC D-99 (liposome encapsulated doxorubicin) vs. free doxorubicin (DOX) in patients with metastatic breast carcinoma. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :124a .
160. Batist G, Winer E, Navari R et al. Decreased cardiac toxicity by TLC D-99 (liposomal encapsulated doxorubicin) vs. doxorubicin in a randomized trial of metastatic breast carcinoma (MBC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :115a .
161. Isaksson E, Wilking N, Molin C et al. Phase I trial of DaunoXome and Taxol as first line treatment in metastatic breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :148a .
162. Judson IR. The anthrapyrazoles: a new class of compounds with clinical activity in breast cancer. Semin Oncol 1992 ; 19 :687 -694.[Medline]
163. Leopold WR, Nelson JM, Plowman J et al. Anthrapyrazoles, a new class of intercalating agents with high-level, broad spectrum activity against murine tumors. Cancer Res 1985 ; 45 :5532 -5539.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
164. Vandenberg T, ten Bokkel Huinink W, Hedley D et al. A phase II study of DUP 941 in advanced breast cancer (CA) patients with no prior chemotherapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1993 ; 12 :67a .
165. Talbot DC, Smith IE, Mansi JL et al. Anthrapyrazole CI941: a highly active new agent in the treatment of advanced breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1991 ; 9 :2141 -2147.[Abstract]
166. Smith I, Goldstein L, Wheeler R et al. A phase II study of DUP 941 in advanced breast cancer (CA) patients treated with prior chemotherapy. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1993 ; 12 :67a .
167. Kaye SB. Gemcitabine: current status of phase I and II trials. J Clin Oncol 1994 ; 12 :1527 -1531.[Free Full Text]
168. Hertel LW, Boder GB, Kroin JS et al. Evaluation of the antitumor activity of gemcitabine (2',2'-difluoro-2'-deoxycytidine). Cancer Res 1990 ; 50 :4417 -4422.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
169. Plunkett W, Huang P, Searcy CE et al. Gemcitabine: preclinical pharmacology and mechanisms of action. Semin Oncol 1996 ; 23(suppl 10) :3 -15.[Medline]
170. Carmichael J, Possinger K, Phillip P et al. Advanced breast cancer: a phase II trial with gemcitabine. J Clin Oncol 1995 ; 13 :2731 -2736.[Abstract]
171. Blackstein M, Vogel CL, Ambinder R et al. Phase II study of gemcitabine in patients with metastatic breast cancer. Eur J Cancer 1997 ; 33(suppl 8) :S149a .
172. Possinger K, Kaufmann M, Helsing M et al. Advanced breast cancer: a phase II trial with gemcitabine (gem). Eur J Cancer 1995 ; 31(suppl 5) :S80a .
173. Spielmann M, Kalla S, Llombart-Cussac A et al. Activity of gemcitabine in metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients previously treated with anthracycline-containing regimens. Eur J Cancer 1997 ; 33(suppl 8) :S149a .
174. Possinger K. Gemcitabine in advanced breast cancer. Anti-Cancer Drugs 1995 ; 6(suppl 6) :55 -59.
175. Conte PF, Bengala C, Danesi R et al. Gemcitabine, epirubicin and paclitaxel (GET) in metastatic breast cancer (MBC): preliminary report of a phase I/II study with pharmacokinetic and peripheral blood progenitor cell (PBPC) mobilization assessment. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :134a (abstract 511).
176. Delecroix V, Diéras V, Viens P et al. Gemzar^® and epirubicin (EP) in patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC): preliminary results of a phase I study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :136a .
177. Mavroudis D, Kouroussis C, Malamos N et al. A phase II trial of docetaxel and gemcitabine as second line treatment in metastatic breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :158a .
178. Nagourney RA, Link J, Kunkel L et al. Phase II trial of cisplatin (Cddp) and gemcitabine (dfdc) in heavily pretreated breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :161a .
179. Garcia Conde J, Lluch A, Pérez Manga G et al. Gemcitabine + doxorubicin in advanced breast cancer: final results from an early phase II study. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :147a .
180. Mori A, Bertoglio S, Guglielmi A et al. Activity of continuous-infusion 5-fluorouracil in patients with advanced colorectal cancer clinically resistant to bolus 5-fluorouracil. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1993 ; 33 :179 -180.[Medline]
181. Swain SM, Lippman ME, Egan EF et al. Fluorouracil and high-dose leucovorin in previously treated patients with metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol 1989 ; 7 :890 -899.[Abstract]
182. Chang AY, Most C, Pandya KJ. Continuous intravenous infusion of 5-fluorouracil in the treatment of refractory breast cancer. Am J Clin Oncol 1989 ; 12 :453 -455.[Medline]
183. Jabboury K, Holmes FA, Hortobagyi G. 5-fluorouracil rechallenge by protracted infusion in refractory breast cancer. Cancer 1989 ; 64 :793 -797.[Medline]
184. Lokich J, Anderson NR. Infusional chemotherapy for breast cancer. The Cancer Center of Boston. J Infus Chemother 1993 ; 3 :9 -14.
185. Anderson NR. A reappraisal of optimal delivery in advanced breast cancer. J Infus Chemother 1993 ; 3 :41 -48.
186. Twelves C, Budman DR, Creaven PJ et al. Pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of capecitabine in two phase I studies. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :476a .
187. Ishikawa T, Utoh M, Sawada N et al. Xeloda^TM (capecitabine): an orally available tumor-selective fluoro-pyrimidine carbamate. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :208a .
188. Schüller J, Cassidy J, Reigner BG et al. Tumor selectivity of Xeloda^TM in colorectal cancer patients. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :227a .
189. Blum JL, Buzdar AU, LoRusso PM et al. A multicenter phase II trial of Xeloda^TM (capecitabine) in paclitaxel-refractory metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :125a .
190. O'Shaughnessy J, Moiseyenko V, Bell D et al. A randomized phase II study of Xeloda (capecitabine) vs CMF as first line chemotherapy of breast cancer in women aged 55 years. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :103a .
191. Khoury P, Villalona-Calero M, Blum J et al. Phase I study of capecitabine in combination with paclitaxel in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :206a (abstract 793).
192. Pronk L, Vasey AP, Sparreboom A et al. A matrix-designed phase I dose-finding and pharmacokinetic study of the combination of Xeloda^TM plus Taxotere^TM. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :212a .
193. Brade WP, Hendrich K. Tegafur: a review of pharmacology and toxicology. Contr Oncol 1983 ; 14 :2 -25.
194. Bedikian AY, Bodey GP, Valdivieso M et al. Phase I evaluation of oral tegafur. Cancer Treat Rep 1983 ; 67 :81 -84.[Medline]
195. Nakazato H, Koike A, Sail S et al. Efficacy of oral UFT as adjuvant chemotherapy to curative resection of colorectal cancer: a prospective randomized clinical trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :279a .
196. Cao S, Durrani FA, Maue R et al. Modulation of the antitumor activity of ftorafur (Ft) and uracil (U)-Ft combination (UFt) in rats bearing advanced colon carcinoma. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1993 ; 12 :212a .
197. Pazdur R, Covington WP, Brown NS et al. Comparative steady state pharmacokinetics of oral UFT versus protracted intravenous 5-fluorouracil (FU). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :474a .
198. Ansfield FJ, Kallas GJ, Sigson JP. Phase I-II studies of oral tegafur (ftorafur). J Clin Oncol 1983 ; 1 :107 -110.[Abstract]
199. Marsoni S, Hoth D, Simon R et al. Clinical drug development: an analysis of phase II trials, 1970-1985. Cancer Treat Rep 1987 ; 71 :71 -80.[Medline]
200. Wada T, Koyama H, Terasawa T. Recent advances in chemotherapy for advanced breast cancer. Recent Results Cancer Res 1981 ; 76 :316 -324.[Medline]
201. Kajanti MJ, Pyrhonen SO, Maiche AG. Oral tegafur in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer: a phase II study. Eur J Cancer 1993 ; 29A :863 -866.
202. Sole LA, Albanell J, Bellmunt J et al. Phase II trial of an all-oral regimen of tegafur and folinic acid in patients with previously treated metastatic breast cancer. Cancer 1995 ; 75 :831 -835.[Medline]
203. Daniels M, Diaz-Rubio E, Guillem V et al. Phase II trial of UFT activity in pretreated breast cancer patients. Jpn J Clin Oncol 1993 ; 23 :363 -365.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
204. Villalon AH, De Gùzman LB, Samson MCLC. Tegafur+uracil (UFT)-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide vs 5FU-doxorubicin-cyclophosphamide in advanced breast cancer: a randomized trial. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1996 ; 15 :139a .
205. Martin M, Casado A, Lopez-Martin JA et al. Preliminary results. UFT/methotrexate/leucovorin for breast Ca patients in progression after HDCT/PBPC support. Oncology 1997 ; 11(suppl 10) :83 -85.[Medline]
206. Spector T, Harrington JA, Porter DJ. 5-Ethynyluracil (776C85): inactivation of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase in vivo. Biochem Pharmacol 1993 ; 46 :2243 -2248.[Medline]
207. Baccanari DP, Davis ST, Knick VC et al. 5-Ethynyluracil (776C85): a potent modulator of the pharmacokinetics and antitumor efficacy of 5-fluorouracil. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1993 ; 90 :11064 -11068.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
208. Cao S, Rustum YM, Spector T. 5-Ethynyluracil (776C85): modulation of 5-fluorouracil efficacy and therapeutic index in rats bearing advanced colorectal carcinoma. Cancer Res 1994 ; 54 :1507 -1510.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
209. Rivera E, Chevlen E, Eckardt J et al. A phase II open-label study to evaluate a 28-day oral regimen of 5-fluorouracil (5-FU) plus 776C85 for the treatment of patients with taxane and anthracycline resistant advanced breast cancer: preliminary results. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :113a .
210. Lind MJ, Smith IE, Coleman RE et al. Phase II study of MTA (LY231514) in patients (pts) with locally recurrent or metastatic breast cancer (LR/MBC). Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :112a .
211. Schmid FA, Sirotnak FM, Otter GM et al. New folate analogs of the 10-deaza-aminopterin series: markedly increased activity of the 10-ethyl analog compared to the parent compound and methotrexate against some human tumor xenografts in nude mice. Cancer Treat Rep 1985 ; 69 :551 -553.[Medline]
212. Sirotnak FM, Schmid FA, Samuels LL et al. 10-Ethyl-10-deazaaminopterin: structural design and biochemical, pharmacologic, and antitumor properties. NCI Monogr 1987 ; 5 :127 -131.
213. Chou TC, Otter GM, Sirotnak FM. Schedule-dependent synergism of taxol or Taxotere^® with edatrexate against human breast cancer cells in vitro. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1996 ; 37 :222 -228.[Medline]
214. Schornagel JH, van der Vegt S, Verweij J et al. Phase II study of edatrexate in chemotherapy-naive patients with metastatic breast cancer. Ann Oncol 1992 ; 3 :549 -552.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
215. Vandenberg TA, Pritchard KI, Eisenhauer EA et al. Phase II study of weekly edatrexate as first-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: a National Cancer Institute of Canada Clinical Trials Group study. J Clin Oncol 1993 ; 11 :1241 -1244.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
216. Slichenmyer WJ, Rowinsky EK, Donehower RC et al. The current status of camptothecin analogues as antitumor agents. J Natl Cancer Inst 1993 ; 85 :271 -291.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
217. Bonneterre J, Pion JM, Adenis A et al. A phase II study of a new camptothecin analogue CPT-11 in previously treated advanced breast cancer patients. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1993 ; 12 :94a .
218. Spaeth D, Bonneterre J, Marty M et al. Phase II studies of two trial regimens of topotecan as second-line, single agent therapy in advanced breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :192a .
219. Goldschmidt E, Bonneterre J, Fumoleau P et al. A phase II study of topotecan on a daily x 5 schedule as second-line single agent therapy in patients with advanced breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1997 ; 16 :171a .
220. Cobleigh MA, Vogel CL, Tripathy D et al. Efficacy and safety of Herceptin^TM (humanized anti-HER2 antibody) as a single agent in 222 women with HER2 overexpression who relapsed following chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol 1998 ; 17 :97a .

This article has been cited by other articles:

				A. Ardavanis, A. Scorilas, D. Tryfonopoulos, G. Orphanos, I. Missitzis, M. Karamouzis, M. Chrysochoou, A. Sotiropoulou, N. Arnogiannaki, G. Ioannidis, et al. Multidisciplinary therapy of locally far-advanced or inflammatory breast cancer with fixed perioperative sequence of epirubicin, vinorelbine, and Fluorouracil chemotherapy, surgery, and radiotherapy: long-term results. Oncologist, June 1, 2006; 11(6): 563 - 573. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				F. Marques, A. Paulo, M. P. Campello, S. Lacerda, R. F. Vitor, L. Gano, R. Delgado, and I. Santos Radiopharmaceuticals for targeted radiotherapy Radiat Prot Dosimetry, December 20, 2005; 116(1-4): 601 - 604. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				I. Kuter Breast Cancer Oncologist, August 1, 2001; 6(4): 338 - 346. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. B. Gibbs Mechanism-Based Target Identification and Drug Discovery in Cancer Research Science, March 17, 2000; 287(5460): 1969 - 1973. [Abstract] [Full Text]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) eLetters: Submit a response to this article Purchase Article View Shopping Cart Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services E-mail this article link to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Reprints/Permissions Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Vogel, C. L. Articles by Nabholtz, J.-M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Vogel, C. L. Articles by Nabholtz, J.-M.