Elsevier

Clinical Breast Cancer

Volume 10, Issue 1, February 2010, Pages 64-73
Clinical Breast Cancer

Original Study
Visceral Disease in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer: Efficacy and Safety of Treatment With Ixabepilone and Other Chemotherapeutic Agents

https://doi.org/10.3816/CBC.2010.n.009Get rights and content

Abstract

Patients with metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have poor prognoses and 5-year survival rates of approximately 20%. The site(s) and degree of metastatic dissemination are among the principal prognostic factors for patients with MBC. Patients with visceral metastases to the liver and/or lung have a very poor prognosis. Although good performance status, restricted disease dissemination, and limited extent of metastatic infiltration are associated with higher responses to chemotherapy, responses are generally short lived, with rapid disease progression after treatment failure. Thus, novel strategies for the management of patients with MBC with visceral disease are urgently needed. We have analyzed outcomes of trials that evaluated various chemotherapeutic agents as monotherapy or in combination with capecitabine in patients with MBC with primary visceral disease involvement. Treatment with microtubule inhibitors such as paclitaxel, docetaxel, and albumin-bound paclitaxel, generally administered in earlier lines of treatment, resulted in comparable responses. Lower response rates (RRs) were reported with other agents such as capecitabine, vinorelbine, and gemcitabine. Adverse events consistent with known toxicities of each agent were observed in the selected trials and related to dose and administration schedule. The epothilone B analogue ixabepilone has demonstrated clinical efficacy and manageable safety in populations of heavily pretreated patients with MBC with high visceral disease burdens to liver and/or lung (61%–86% of patients). Objective RRs ranging from 12% to 57% have been reported for ixabepilone, as monotherapy and in combination with capecitabine, depending on degree of pretreatment. Responses to ixabepilone in patients with visceral metastases were comparable to those observed in overall study patient populations.

Introduction

Significant progress has been made in the treatment of patients with breast cancer during the past 3 decades. Technologic advances have permitted diagnosis of disease at earlier stages as a result of implementation and acceptance of improved screening procedures. Despite aggressive first-line surgery and chemotherapy, a significant proportion of patients still experience disease relapse. In these patients, the introduction of novel therapies, including hormonal agents, targeted agents, anthracyclines, and taxanes, has resulted in the prolongation of survival and improved quality of life. In addition, an improved understanding of the biologic and biochemical processes underlying the development and progression of breast cancer have led to a better understanding of the heterogeneity of the disease and the various patient subgroups that might benefit most from specific forms of therapy. These advances have led to the identification of a number of factors that are predictive of patient prognoses.1, 2, 3 The major prognostic factors in breast cancer are listed in Table 1.

Nearly 50% of patients treated with hormonal and/or chemotherapeutic agents develop distant metastatic disease.4, 5, 6, 7 Patients who develop metastatic breast cancer (MBC) have a poor prognosis, with a median survival of 1-2 years and a 5-year survival rate of approximately 20%.8, 9 The clinical outcomes of patients with MBC can be highly variable owing to multiple factors that determine the progression of disease.3, 4, 7 Various studies have identified prognostic factors that have important implications for the management of patients with MBC. Among these, axillary lymph node status at diagnosis, relapse-free interval, previous adjuvant chemotherapy, hormone receptor [estrogen receptor (ER) and progesterone receptor (PgR)] status, number of metastatic disease sites, site(s) of recurrence, and visceral involvement have demonstrated correlation with overall patient survival by univariate and multivariate analyses.9, 10, 11, 12, 13

Various studies also demonstrate that the sites of recurrent disease have a strong association with survival of patients with MBC (Figure 1).5, 8, 12, 14, 15 A retrospective analysis of 3-year breast cancer–specific survival (BCSS) rates in 294 patients treated for operable breast cancer revealed that prognosis was highly dependent on the site of first metastatic recurrence. Patients with local recurrence had a BCSS rate of 83%. By contrast, the BCSS rate was 33% for patients with nodal recurrence, 23% for those with bone recurrence, and 13% for patients with visceral recurrence.15

The observed differences in clinical outcomes of patients with MBC might be related to the inherent properties of the tumor as well as the microenvironment of the host organ. For example, clinically apparent breast cancer metastases to the brain develop in approximately 5%–15% of patients, with the reported incidence in autopsy studies ranging between 18% and 30%.16 Recent studies demonstrate a higher incidence of brain metastases in patients with MBC expressing high levels of HER2, reflecting more aggressive nature of HER2+ disease.17, 18, 19 The increased incidence of brain metastases in patients with HER2+ disease persists even after treatment with trastuzumab because the drug cannot penetrate the blood-brain barrier. Higher incidence of brain metastases has also been reported in patients with MBC lacking expression of ER, PgR, and HER2 (triple-negative) MBC.20 Because of restricted penetration of drugs through the blood-brain barrier, chemotherapy is of limited value in patients with brain metastases.16 Lung is the first site of metastasis in approximately 15%–25% of patients with MBC, the second highest frequency of any organ after bone.21 Standard treatment for lung metastases includes chemotherapy and/or radiation therapy.21, 22 Patients with solitary lung nodules (approximately 3% of patients) might benefit from surgery with or without chemotherapy.21, 22, 23

Approximately 50% of patients with advanced breast cancer develop hepatic metastases.5, 22, 23 Patients with breast cancer who develop visceral metastases to the liver generally have much poorer prognoses than patients with metastases to bone or soft tissues, with median survival of < 6 months.5, 14, 15 However, recent improvements in diagnostic techniques and therapeutic regimens have led to improved clinical outcomes in these patients with poor prognoses.5, 22, 23 Zinser et al retrospectively examined the survival of 233 patients with MBC with liver metastases treated with doxorubicin-containing chemotherapy regimens between 1973 and 1980 and compared it with survival of a cohort of 58 patients with MBC with liver metastases treated with hormonal therapy or single-agent chemotherapy (fluorouracil or thiotepa) between 1955 and 1957.24 A marked improvement in median survival was observed for patients with MBC treated with combination chemotherapy in the 1970s (14 months) compared with patients treated in the 1950s (5 months). For patients treated in the 1970s, the number of organs involved had a strong association with overall survival (OS) in response to chemotherapy. The longest median survival, 26 months, was observed in responding patients with metastases restricted to the liver versus 18.5 months and 17 months, respectively, in responding patients with metastases to the liver plus bone and responding patients with metastases to liver plus ≥ 3 organ sites. The median survival for all responding patients was 19.5 months versus 6 months for nonresponding patients.

Pentheroudakis et al examined the outcomes of 500 patients with MBC with liver metastases treated with first-line chemotherapy from 1988 through 2004.14 An objective response rate (ORR; RR) of 34% was observed in these patients treated with first-line chemotherapy. In addition, nearly 80% of the patients received second-line chemotherapy, with an ORR of 16%. Multivariate analyses demonstrated that previous adjuvant chemotherapy, performance status (PS), and degree of metastatic dissemination were independent predictors of survival.

In addition to organ involvement, an important consideration in the selection of chemotherapy for MBC is adequate liver function. This is particularly important for patients with a high burden of hepatic involvement, who could experience decreased clearance of chemotherapeutic agents such as anthracyclines and taxanes.5, 25 Hepatic impairment results in an increased risk of severe toxicity from these agents and limits the ability to deliver adequate and effective treatment doses.25 For example, Alexandre et al demonstrated that in patients with a high burden of visceral metastases (73.5% of the patients), liver dysfunction was associated with a lower RR, shorter time to treatment failure, shorter OS, and increased incidence of adverse events with single-agent docetaxel.26 By contrast, Twelves et al reported that there was no significant change in the absorption or metabolism of capecitabine in patients with MBC with mild to moderate hepatic impairment caused by liver metastases.27 These results suggest that there might be minimal impact on the therapeutic activity of capecitabine in this patient population.

Many studies have evaluated the efficacy of conventional chemotherapeutic agents (anthracyclines, taxanes, and newer agents) as monotherapy and combination therapy in MBC.28, 29, 30, 31 As previously noted, criteria such as location/extent of metastatic disease, patient PS, and extent of previous treatment as well as criteria used to define drug resistance can have a profound influence on responses to therapy. Unfortunately, a significant number of studies in MBC have not reported the proportion of patients with visceral metastases, and for obvious reasons, reported outcomes are difficult to extrapolate to the patient with significant visceral tumor burden. Therefore, it is difficult to assess, across trials, the clinical benefit provided by a specific chemotherapeutic regimen in this population of patients with a poor prognosis. Herein, we discuss the results of clinical trials that have evaluated the efficacy of chemotherapeutic agents (microtubule inhibitors and other agents) as monotherapy and in combination with capecitabine, with an emphasis on MBC trials in patient populations with documented visceral disease by virtue of metastases to liver and/or lung. In addition, we discuss current recommendations for dosing of standard chemotherapeutic agents in patients with hepatic dysfunction.

Section snippets

Monotherapy Options for Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer With Visceral Disease

A substantial number of trials have evaluated microtubule inhibitors such as the taxanes as monotherapy in patients with MBC with documented visceral disease, generally when administered during earlier lines of treatment. Additional classes of agents have been evaluated as monotherapy, predominantly within the context of previous treatment failure (progressive and/or resistant disease). The results of clinical trials evaluating various chemotherapeutic agents in patients with MBC with

Safety of Monotherapy in Patients With Metastatic Breast Cancer With Visceral Disease

The safety profiles of microtubule inhibitors, capecitabine, and gemcitabine administered as monotherapy in patients with MBC with visceral disease were not significantly different from those observed in the general patient populations and were consistent with the known toxicities of the individual agents. Caution should be exercised when treating patients with MBC with a high burden of liver metastases to minimize the potential for severe toxicities associated with hepatic impairment.

Microtubule Inhibitors

Paclitaxel-Based Combination Regimens With Capecitabine. Although various trials have evaluated paclitaxel- and albumin-bound paclitaxel–based combination regimens with capecitabine in patients with MBC, the regimens were used primarily in the first-line setting, with ORRs ranging between 42% and 63%.122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127 A 53% ORR was reported in one phase II trial evaluating combination albumin-bound paclitaxel plus capecitabine as first-line therapy for MBC.127 Little information is

Discussion

A significant clinical benefit has been observed for patients with MBC with a high burden of visceral metastases treated with chemotherapy. Similar responses (ORRs ranging approximately between approximately 10% and 60%) have been reported in patients with MBC treated with the single-agent microtubule inhibitors paclitaxel, docetaxel, albumin-bound paclitaxel, vinorelbine, and ixabepilone (Table 2A, Table 2B). Lower responses (ORRs ranging approximately between 0 and 45%) were observed in

Disclosures

The author's sources of support include grants, equipment, and drugs. Sarah Cannon Research Institute has received research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Dr. Yardley has participated as an investigator on studies funded by Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. Dr. Yardley does not receive direct research funding from Bristol-Myers Squibb Company.

Acknowledgments

The authors wish to acknowledge the editorial assistance of Roy Garcia, PhD, Inexel.

References (147)

  • HJ Stemmler et al.

    Weekly docetaxol (Taxotere) in patients with metastatic breast cancer

    Ann Oncol

    (2001)
  • T Aihara et al.

    Phase II study of weekly docetaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer

    Ann Oncol

    (2002)
  • JL Blum et al.

    Phase II study of weekly albumin-bound paclitaxel for patients with metastatic breast cancer heavily pretreated with taxanes

    Clin Breast Cancer

    (2007)
  • M Degardin et al.

    Vinorelbine (navelbine) as a salvage treatment for advanced breast cancer

    Ann Oncol

    (1994)
  • M Martin et al.

    Gemcitabine plus vinorelbine versus vinorelbine monotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer previously treated with anthracyclines and taxanes: final results of the phase III Spanish breast cancer research group (GEICAM) trial

    Lancet Oncol

    (2007)
  • WL Donegan

    Tumor-related prognostic factors for breast cancer

    CA Cancer J Clin

    (1997)
  • PL Fitzgibbons et al.

    Prognostic factors in breast cancer

    Arch Pathol Lab Med

    (2000)
  • Breast cancer

    National Comprehensive Cancer Network Clinical Practice Guidelines in Oncology–v.1.2009. National Comprehensive Cancer Network [Web site]

  • RD Rubens

    Management of advanced breast cancer

    Int J Clin Pract

    (2001)
  • AM Gonzalez-Angulo et al.

    Overview of resistance to systemic therapy in patients with breast cancer

  • RC Leonard et al.

    ABC of breast diseases: metastatic breast cancer

    BMJ

    (1994)
  • MH Eichbaum et al.

    Prognostic factors for patients with liver metastases from breast cancer

    Breast Cancer Res Treat

    (2006)
  • A Insa et al.

    Prognostic factors predicting survival from first recurrence in patients with metastatic breast cancer: analysis of 439 patients

    Breast Cancer Res Treat

    (1999)
  • E Alba et al.

    Adjuvant anthracycline therapy as a prognostic factor in metastatic breast cancer

    Breast Cancer Res Treat

    (2001)
  • PG Koenders et al.

    Human breast cancer: survival from first metastasis. Breast Cancer Study Group

    Breast Cancer Res Treat

    (1992)
  • G Pentheroudakis et al.

    Metastatic breast cancer with liver metastases: a registry analysis of clinicopathologic, management and outcome characteristics of 500 women

    Breast Cancer Res Treat

    (2006)
  • N Ramakrishna et al.

    Site-specific therapy of metastatic breast cancer

  • R Duchnowska et al.

    Risk factors for brain relapse in HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer patients

    Breast Cancer Res Treat

    (2009)
  • M Ono et al.

    Brain metastases in patients who receive trastuzumab-containing chemotherapy for HER2-overexpressing metastatic breast cancer

    Int J Clin Oncol

    (2009)
  • B Nam et al.

    Survival differences in patients with brain metastases according to breast cancer subtypes

    J Clin Oncol

    (2007)
  • SJ Mentzer et al.

    Site-specific therapy of metastatic breast cancer

  • SE Singletary et al.

    A role for curative surgery in the treatment of selected patients with metastatic breast cancer

    Oncologist

    (2003)
  • EF Solomayer et al.

    Metastatic breast cancer: clinical course, prognosis and therapy related to the first site of metastasis

    Breast Cancer Res Treat

    (2000)
  • JW Zinser et al.

    Clinical course of breast cancer patients with liver metastases

    J Clin Oncol

    (1987)
  • D Superfin et al.

    Commentary: oncologic drugs in patients with organ dysfunction: a summary

    Oncologist

    (2007)
  • J Alexandre et al.

    Factors predicting for efficacy and safety of docetaxel in a compassionate-use cohort of 825 heavily pretreated advanced breast cancer patients

    J Clin Oncol

    (2000)
  • C Twelves et al.

    Effect of hepatic dysfunction due to liver metastases on the pharmacokinetics of capecitabine and its metabolites

    Clin Cancer Res

    (1999)
  • CL Vogel et al.

    Monotherapy of metastatic breast cancer: a review of newer agents

    Oncologist

    (1999)
  • J Crown et al.

    Docetaxel and paclitaxel in the treatment of breast cancer: a review of clinical experience

    Oncologist

    (2004)
  • J O'Shaughnessy

    Extending survival with chemotherapy in metastatic breast cancer

    Oncologist

    (2005)
  • JS Abrams et al.

    Paclitaxel in heavily pretreated breast cancer: a national cancer institute treatment referral center trial

    J Clin Oncol

    (1995)
  • AD Seidman et al.

    Phase II trial of paclitaxel by 3-hour infusion as initial and salvage chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer

    J Clin Oncol

    (1995)
  • JM Nabholtz et al.

    Multicenter, randomized comparative study of two doses of paclitaxel in patients with metastatic breast cancer

    J Clin Oncol

    (1996)
  • P Vici et al.

    Paclitaxel (P) in anthracycline-resistant breast cancer (BC) patients (pts)

    Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol

    (1997)
  • GW Sledge et al.

    Phase III trial of doxorubicin, paclitaxel, and the combination of doxorubicin and paclitaxel as front-line chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer: and intergroup trial (E1193)

    J Clin Oncol

    (2003)
  • EP Winer et al.

    Failure of higher-dose paclitaxel to improve outcome in patients with metastatic breast cancer: cancer and leukemia group B trial 9342

    J Clin Oncol

    (2004)
  • AD Seidman et al.

    Dose-dense therapy with weekly 1-hour paclitaxel infusions in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer

    J Clin Oncol

    (1998)
  • C Sola et al.

    Phase II study of weekly paclitaxel (P) treatment in recurrent breast cancer after high-dose chemotherapy (HDC)

    Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol

    (1999)
  • EA Perez et al.

    Multicenter phase II trial of weekly paclitaxel in women with metastatic breast cancer

    J Clin Oncol

    (2001)
  • WM Sikov et al.

    Multicenter, 3-arm randomized study of high-dose weekly paclitaxel (HDWP) versus standard-dose weekly paclitaxel (SDWP) for metastatic breast cancer (MBC)

    Proc Am Soc Clin Oncol

    (2002)
  • Cited by (28)

    • Clinical and molecular complexity of breast cancer metastases

      2015, Seminars in Cancer Biology
      Citation Excerpt :

      Patients presenting with solitary (oligo) lesions survive longer than patients with multiple lesions [60]. The distant organs to which breast cancers metastasize also has clinical implications, and the site/s involved are known to affect both post-recurrence survival and overall survival [60,62–64] (Fig. 1). Overall, the most frequent sites of secondary relapse of breast cancer include the bone, lungs, liver and brain [61,65], even though a tendency toward widespread metastases to other sites has been demonstrated [57].

    • Cancer-Secreted miR-105 destroys vascular endothelial barriers to promote metastasis

      2014, Cancer Cell
      Citation Excerpt :

      Metastasis is the leading cause of mortality in cancer patients. Nearly 50% of breast cancer (BC) patients treated with chemotherapeutic and/or hormonal agents develop distant metastatic disease (Nicolini et al., 2006; Rubens, 2001); these patients face a 5-year survival rate of only ∼20% (Yardley, 2010). Therefore, there is a great and urgent need to develop predictive or early diagnostic markers for metastasis and to elucidate the molecular mechanisms of metastasis that would allow the development of efficient treatment options.

    • Claudin-2 is an independent negative prognostic factor in breast cancer and specifically predicts early liver recurrences

      2014, Molecular Oncology
      Citation Excerpt :

      While it is known that cancer cells preferentially metastasize to specific organs, the molecular mechanisms driving this organ-specific tropism are not well understood. Gene expression signatures that predict bone (Kang et al., 2003), lung (Minn et al., 2005) and brain (Bos et al., 2009) metastases from breast cancer have been published, but no signature for liver metastasis is currently available despite the adverse clinical outcome of patients with hepatic metastases as demonstrated by us herein, and others (Imkampe et al., 2007; Largillier et al., 2008; Yardley, 2010). Although these gene signatures have contributed greatly to the understanding of metastasis organotropism, there is a need to identify the most informative and robust candidate genes among these signatures, which may be used as surrogate biomarkers in more convenient assays such as IHC.

    View all citing articles on Scopus

    This summary may include the discussion of investigational and/or unlabeled uses of drugs and/or devices that may not be approved by the FDA.

    Electronic forwarding or copying is a violation of US and International Copyright Laws.

    Authorization to photocopy items for internal or personal use, or the internal or personal use of specific clients, is granted by CIG Media Group, LP, ISSN #1526-8209, provided the appropriate fee is paid directly to Copyright Clearance Center, 222 Rosewood Drive, Danvers, MA 01923 USA. www.copyright.com 978-750-8400.

    View full text