He, Yi

1050^ Background: In a phase III trial comparing eribulin (E) vs. capecitabine (C) in pts with locally advanced or MBC, a trend for improved OS was observed but a statistically significant superiority was not demonstrated with E vs. C for OS or PFS. The AE profiles were consistent with known side effects. We now report QoL results from this trial. Methods: Pts received eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 on Days 1 and 8, or C 1.25 g/m2 BID orally on Days 1-14, of a 21-day cycle. Eligible pts had received prior therapy including an anthracycline and taxane, and were receiving study drug as 1st-, 2nd-, or 3rd-line therapy for advanced disease. QoL, a secondary objective, was assessed using EORTC QLQ-C30 and QLQ-BR23 questionnaires at baseline, 6 weeks, 3, 6, 12, 18, and 24 months after starting treatment (or until progressive disease or treatment change), and at unscheduled visits. Longitudinal analyses were carried out using weighted generalized estimating equations adjusted for non-random attrition due to death within 12 months. Model covariates were time (visit), region, and baseline QoL. The primary endpoint was change from baseline for Global Health Status (GHS)/overall QoL; exploratory endpoints were change from baseline for each functional domain, and signs/symptoms. Results: 1,102 pts were randomized (E 554; C 548). GHS/QoL scores were low at baseline for E (56.3) and C (54.7) on a scale of 0 (worse) to 100 (best). GHS/QoL and cognitive functioning improved significantly more in pts receiving E vs. C, (6.5 [p=0.048] and 15.3 [p<0.001], respectively). Emotional functioning improved significantly for pts receiving C vs. E (3.3; p=0.033). Pain was comparable at baseline, and was lower at subsequent visits with both treatments. Patient-reported signs/symptoms in favor of E included nausea and vomiting (E1.9; p=0.043) and diarrhea (-3.7; p=0.001); systemic side effects (5.2; p<0.001) and upset by hair loss (9.3; p=0.023) favored C. Conclusions: GHS/QoL scores improved more in pts receiving E than C. E showed advantages in terms of gastrointestinal effects while C had advantages in relation to hair loss. Clinical trial information: NCT00337103.

1049^ Background: This phase III study, comparing eribulin versus capecitabine, showed a non-significant trend for superior overall survival (OS; hazard ratio [HR] 0.88 [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.77, 1.00]; p = 0.056) but not progression-free survival (PFS; HR 1.08 [95% CI 0.93, 1.25]; p = 0.31). Pre-specified exploratory subgroup analyses previously presented showed that patients with triple-negative, ER-negative or HER2-negative disease may have a greater benefit in OS with eribulin compared with capecitabine. Here we present further pre-specified exploratory analyses of OS and PFS. Methods: Patients (eribulin n=554; capecitabine n=548) with locally advanced or MBC had received ≤3 prior chemotherapy regimens (≤2 for advanced disease), including an anthracycline and a taxane. Patients were randomized (stratified for geographic region and HER2 status) 1:1 to 21-day cycles of eribulin mesylate 1.4 mg/m2 i.v. on days 1 and 8 or capecitabine 1.25 g/m2BID orally on days 1-14. Further pre-specified exploratory subgroups included: age; receptor status; number and setting of prior chemotherapy regimen(s); sites of disease; number of organs involved; and time to progression after last chemotherapy. Results: From analyses for OS, patients with only non-visceral disease (HR 0.51; 95% CI 0.33, 0.80), with >2 organs involved (HR 0.75; 95% CI 0.62, 0.90), who had progressed >6 months after last chemotherapy (HR 0.70; 95% CI 0.52, 0.95), or who had received an anthracycline and/or a taxane in the metastatic setting (HR 0.84; 95% CI 0.72, 0.98), appeared to benefit more from treatment with eribulin compared with capecitabine. For OS, in no subgroup was a trend favoring capecitabine seen. Data for other pre-specified subgroups for both OS and PFS will be presented. Conclusions: In addition to patients with triple-, ER-, or HER2-negative disease, further pre-specified exploratory analyses suggest that other patient subgroups may particularly benefit from treatment with eribulin; further studies are warranted to address these hypotheses. Clinical trial information: NCT00337103.

Purpose This phase III randomized trial (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT00337103) compared eribulin with capecitabine in patients with locally advanced or metastatic breast cancer (MBC). Patients and Methods Women with MBC who had received prior anthracycline- and taxane-based therapy were randomly assigned to receive eribulin or capecitabine as their first-, second-, or third-line chemotherapy for advanced/metastatic disease. Stratification factors were human epidermal growth factor receptor-2 (HER2) status and geographic region. Coprimary end points were overall survival (OS) and progression-free survival (PFS). Results Median OS times for eribulin (n = 554) and capecitabine (n = 548) were 15.9 and 14.5 months, respectively (hazard ratio [HR], 0.88; 95% CI, 0.77 to 1.00; P = .056). Median PFS times for eribulin and capecitabine were 4.1 and 4.2 months, respectively (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.25; P = .30). Objective response rates were 11.0% for eribulin and 11.5% for capecitabine. Global health status and overall quality-of-life scores over time were similar in the treatment arms. Both treatments had manageable safety profiles consistent with their known adverse effects; most adverse events were grade 1 or 2. Conclusion In this phase III study, eribulin was not shown to be superior to capecitabine with regard to OS or PFS.