Effectiveness and safety of eribulin for human epidermal growth factor receptor 2 negative metastatic breast cancer in a real-world population

Abstract

Background

Eribulin’s clinical benefit remains unclear; so, studies analyzing its effectiveness in routine clinical practice are interesting.

Patients and methods

This is a multicenter, retrospective study including patients with human epidermal growth factor receptor-2-negative metastatic breast cancer which assesses effectiveness and safety of eribulin.

Results

A total of 140 women were included, with a median age of 57 years. The median overall survival and progression-free survival were 8.8 (95% confidence interval: 6.1–11.4) and 2.8 months (95% confidence interval: 2.5–3.1), respectively. For patients with hormonal receptor expression, a significantly longer progression-free survival was observed: 3.4 (95%confidence interval: 2.3–4.5) versus triple negative: 2.0 (95%confidence interval: 1.7–2.3) months, p = 0.003. Also, those who had received capecitabine prior to eribulin had a higher median overall survival than those who had not received it (9.5 months, 95% confidence interval: 6.6–12.5 vs. 4.8 months, 95% confidence interval: 3.4–6.2; p = 0.001). When only triple-negative patients were included, median overall survival was 6.5 (95% confidence interval: 0.1–16.2) for those who had received previous capecitabine versus 4.3 (95% confidence interval: 2.8–5.8) months for patients who had not received it; p =0.006. The safety profile of eribulin was adequate.

Conclusion

Effectiveness of eribulin in a real-life human epidermal growth factor receptor-2--negative population is lower than that observed in clinical trials. Its benefit seems to be higher in patients with hormonal receptor expression and patients who had received capecitabine prior to eribulin. The safety profile of eribulin is adequate.

Keywords

Eribulin human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 negative metastatic breast cancer capecitabine

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Breast. Globocan 2020. Available from: https://gco.iarc.fr/today/data/factsheets/cancers/20-Breast-fact-sheet.pdf (accessed 4 January 2021).

Telli

Gradishar

Ward

. NCCN Guidelines updates: breast cancer. J Natl Compr Canc Netw 2019; 17: 552–555.

Cardoso

, et al. 5^th ESO-ESMO international consensus guidelines for advanced breast cancer (ABC 5). Ann Oncol 2020; 31: 1623–1649.

Cortes

, et al. Eribulin monotherapy versus treatment of physician’s choice in patients with metastatic breast cancer (EMBRACE): a phase 3 open-label randomised study. Lancet Lond Engl 2011; 377: 914–923.

Kaufman

, et al. Phase III open-label randomized study of eribulin mesylate versus capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer previously treated with an anthracycline and a taxane. J Clin Oncol 2015; 33: 594–601.

Halaven® public assessment report. Available from: https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/assessment-report/halaven-epar-public-assessment-report_en.pdf (accessed 4 January 2021).

Agencia Española de Medicamentos y Productos Sanitarios (AEMPS). Informe de Posicionamiento Terapéutico de eribulina (Halaven®) en el cáncer de mama. 2015. Available from: https://www.aemps.gob.es/medicamentosUsoHumano/informesPublicos/docs/eribulina-Halaven.pdf?x53593. (accessed 4 January 2021).

ESMO-Magnitude of clinical benefit scale (ESMO-MCBS). Available from: https://www.esmo.org/guidelines/esmo-mcbs?hit=ehp (accessed 4 January 2021).

European Platform of Cancer Research. Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events (CTCAE) version 5.0. 2017. Available from: https://www.eortc.be/services/doc/ctc/CTCAE_v5_Quick_Reference_5x7.pdf (accessed 4 January 2021).

10.

Twelves

, et al. Efficacy of eribulin in women with metastatic breast cancer: a pooled analysis of two phase 3 studies. Breast Cancer Res Treat 2014; 148: 553–561.

11.

Pivot

Marmé

Koenigsberg

, et al. Pooled analyses of eribulin in metastatic breast cancer patients with at least one prior chemotherapy. Ann Oncol 2016; 27: 1525–1531.

12.

Jacot

, et al. Real-life activity of eribulin mesylate among metastatic breast cancer patients in the multicenter national observational ESME program. Int J Cancer 2019; 145: 3359–3369.

13.

Bergamino Sirvén

, et al. Real-world efficacy and safety of eribulin in advanced and pretreated HER2-negative breast cancer in a Spanish comprehensive cancer center. BMC Pharmacol Toxicol 2019; 20: 68.

14.

Mougalian

, et al. Clinical benefit of treatment with eribulin mesylate for metastatic triple-negative breast cancer: long-term outcomes of patients treated in the US community oncology setting. Cancer Med 2018; 7: 4371–4378.

15.

Manso

, et al. Safety of eribulin as third-line chemotherapy in HER2-negative, advanced breast cancer pre-treated with taxanes and anthracyclines: onSITE study. Breast J 2019; 9: 1–7. 2018; 19(2): 105–112.

16.

Pedersini

, et al. Eribulin in heavily pretreated metastatic breast cancer patients in the real world: a retrospective study. Oncology 2018; 94: 10–15.

17.

Gamucci

, et al. Eribulin mesylate in pretreated breast cancer patients: a multicenter retrospective observational study. J Cancer 2014; 5: 320–327.

18.

Ortega

, et al. Phase II, multicenter, single-arm trial of eribulin as first-line therapy for patients with aggressive taxane-pretreated HER2-negative metastatic breast cancer: the MERIBEL STUDY. Clin Breast Cancer 2019; 19: 105–112.

19.

Kimura

, et al. A phase II, multicenter, single-arm trial of eribulin as first- or second-line chemotherapy for HER2-negative advances or metastatic breast cancer: evaluation of efficacy, safety and patient-reported outcomes. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 2018; 81: 923–933.