艾力布林治疗晚期或转移性乳腺癌的时机重要吗?来自真实世界的证据。

IF 2 4区 医学 Q3 ONCOLOGY
Chemotherapy Pub Date : 2023-01-01 DOI:10.1159/000526490
Chih-Jung Chen, Hanh T H Nguyen, Chih-Hao Huang, Hwei-Chung Wang, Chen-Teng Wu, Yao-Chung Wu, Geng-Yan He, Chiahung Chou, Hsiang-Wen Lin, Liang-Chih Liu
{"title":"艾力布林治疗晚期或转移性乳腺癌的时机重要吗?来自真实世界的证据。","authors":"Chih-Jung Chen,&nbsp;Hanh T H Nguyen,&nbsp;Chih-Hao Huang,&nbsp;Hwei-Chung Wang,&nbsp;Chen-Teng Wu,&nbsp;Yao-Chung Wu,&nbsp;Geng-Yan He,&nbsp;Chiahung Chou,&nbsp;Hsiang-Wen Lin,&nbsp;Liang-Chih Liu","doi":"10.1159/000526490","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to examine the effectiveness and safety of eribulin used as an early-line (EL, i.e., first-/second-line) versus late-line (LL, i.e., third-line and beyond) chemotherapy for recurrent advanced or metastatic breast cancer (A/MBC) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study conducted a retrospective observation of A/MBC patients initiating eribulin between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019, using medical database at a university-affiliated teaching hospital in Taiwan. Patients were assigned into either the EL or LL group based on the timing of respective eribulin treatments and were observed for at least 6 months up to December 2019 for progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), disease response, and occurrence of adverse events. The Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard regression survival analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 127 patients, 23.6% (n = 30) and 76.4% (n = 97) were assigned to the EL and LL groups, respectively, between which no difference in patient characteristics was noted. Median PFS and TTF were 6.5 months and 5.0 months for the EL and 4.2 months and 3.4 months for the LL, respectively. Median OS could not be estimated in the EL group and was 20.5 months in the LL group. Eribulin as an EL treatment was the only factor associated with longer TTF and OS, whereas the number of metastatic sites was additionally associated with PFS in the multivariate analysis. No complete response was reported in either group, but a partial response was obtained in 6.7% in the EL group and 3.1% in the LL group. The common adverse events between two groups were similar, including leukopenia (80.0%), neutropenia (76.7%), and anemia (60.0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The eribulin used as an EL of chemotherapy was effective for A/MBC patients with known toxicities in this study, while eribulin as the LL chemotherapy showed consistent results with previous reports.</p>","PeriodicalId":10047,"journal":{"name":"Chemotherapy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Does the Timing of Eribulin Treatment for Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer Matter? Evidence from a Real-World Setting.\",\"authors\":\"Chih-Jung Chen,&nbsp;Hanh T H Nguyen,&nbsp;Chih-Hao Huang,&nbsp;Hwei-Chung Wang,&nbsp;Chen-Teng Wu,&nbsp;Yao-Chung Wu,&nbsp;Geng-Yan He,&nbsp;Chiahung Chou,&nbsp;Hsiang-Wen Lin,&nbsp;Liang-Chih Liu\",\"doi\":\"10.1159/000526490\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Background: </strong>This study aimed to examine the effectiveness and safety of eribulin used as an early-line (EL, i.e., first-/second-line) versus late-line (LL, i.e., third-line and beyond) chemotherapy for recurrent advanced or metastatic breast cancer (A/MBC) patients.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>This study conducted a retrospective observation of A/MBC patients initiating eribulin between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019, using medical database at a university-affiliated teaching hospital in Taiwan. Patients were assigned into either the EL or LL group based on the timing of respective eribulin treatments and were observed for at least 6 months up to December 2019 for progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), disease response, and occurrence of adverse events. The Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard regression survival analyses were performed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 127 patients, 23.6% (n = 30) and 76.4% (n = 97) were assigned to the EL and LL groups, respectively, between which no difference in patient characteristics was noted. Median PFS and TTF were 6.5 months and 5.0 months for the EL and 4.2 months and 3.4 months for the LL, respectively. Median OS could not be estimated in the EL group and was 20.5 months in the LL group. Eribulin as an EL treatment was the only factor associated with longer TTF and OS, whereas the number of metastatic sites was additionally associated with PFS in the multivariate analysis. No complete response was reported in either group, but a partial response was obtained in 6.7% in the EL group and 3.1% in the LL group. The common adverse events between two groups were similar, including leukopenia (80.0%), neutropenia (76.7%), and anemia (60.0%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The eribulin used as an EL of chemotherapy was effective for A/MBC patients with known toxicities in this study, while eribulin as the LL chemotherapy showed consistent results with previous reports.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":10047,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Chemotherapy\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Chemotherapy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1159/000526490\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"ONCOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Chemotherapy","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1159/000526490","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"ONCOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

背景:本研究旨在探讨伊瑞布林作为复发性晚期或转移性乳腺癌(A/MBC)患者的早期(EL,即一线/二线)和晚期(LL,即三线及以上)化疗的有效性和安全性。方法:利用台湾某大学附属教学医院的医学数据库,对2015年1月1日至2019年6月30日使用艾瑞布林治疗的a /MBC患者进行回顾性观察。根据各自的伊瑞布林治疗时间,将患者分为EL组或LL组,并观察至少6个月至2019年12月的无进展生存期(PFS)、治疗失败时间(TTF)、总生存期(OS)、疾病反应和不良事件的发生。Kaplan-Meier和Cox比例风险回归生存分析。结果:127例患者中,分别有23.6% (n = 30)和76.4% (n = 97)被分配到EL组和LL组,两组患者特征无差异。EL的中位PFS和TTF分别为6.5个月和5.0个月,LL为4.2个月和3.4个月。EL组的中位生存期无法估计,而LL组的中位生存期为20.5个月。在多变量分析中,埃瑞布林作为EL治疗是与更长的TTF和OS相关的唯一因素,而转移部位的数量也与PFS相关。两组均未报告完全缓解,但EL组和LL组分别有6.7%和3.1%的部分缓解。两组常见不良事件相似,包括白细胞减少(80.0%)、中性粒细胞减少(76.7%)和贫血(60.0%)。结论:在本研究中,阿瑞布林作为化疗的EL对已知毒性的A/MBC患者有效,而阿瑞布林作为LL化疗的结果与文献报道一致。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Does the Timing of Eribulin Treatment for Advanced or Metastatic Breast Cancer Matter? Evidence from a Real-World Setting.

Background: This study aimed to examine the effectiveness and safety of eribulin used as an early-line (EL, i.e., first-/second-line) versus late-line (LL, i.e., third-line and beyond) chemotherapy for recurrent advanced or metastatic breast cancer (A/MBC) patients.

Methods: This study conducted a retrospective observation of A/MBC patients initiating eribulin between January 1, 2015, and June 30, 2019, using medical database at a university-affiliated teaching hospital in Taiwan. Patients were assigned into either the EL or LL group based on the timing of respective eribulin treatments and were observed for at least 6 months up to December 2019 for progression-free survival (PFS), time to treatment failure (TTF), overall survival (OS), disease response, and occurrence of adverse events. The Kaplan-Meier and Cox proportional hazard regression survival analyses were performed.

Results: Of 127 patients, 23.6% (n = 30) and 76.4% (n = 97) were assigned to the EL and LL groups, respectively, between which no difference in patient characteristics was noted. Median PFS and TTF were 6.5 months and 5.0 months for the EL and 4.2 months and 3.4 months for the LL, respectively. Median OS could not be estimated in the EL group and was 20.5 months in the LL group. Eribulin as an EL treatment was the only factor associated with longer TTF and OS, whereas the number of metastatic sites was additionally associated with PFS in the multivariate analysis. No complete response was reported in either group, but a partial response was obtained in 6.7% in the EL group and 3.1% in the LL group. The common adverse events between two groups were similar, including leukopenia (80.0%), neutropenia (76.7%), and anemia (60.0%).

Conclusions: The eribulin used as an EL of chemotherapy was effective for A/MBC patients with known toxicities in this study, while eribulin as the LL chemotherapy showed consistent results with previous reports.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Chemotherapy
Chemotherapy 医学-药学
CiteScore
5.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
34
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: This journal publishes original research articles and state-of-the-art reviews on all aspects of antimicrobial and antitumor chemotherapy. The results of experimental and clinical investigations into the microbiological and pharmacologic properties of antibacterial, antiviral and antitumor compounds are major topics of publication. Papers selected for the journal offer data concerning the efficacy, toxicology, and interactions of new drugs in single or combined applications. Studies designed to determine the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamics properties of similar preparations and comparing their efficacy are also included. Special emphasis is given to the development of drug-resistance, an increasing problem worldwide.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信