Objective. To document options metastatic breast cancer (MBC) patients chose for third-line chemo-therapy within the Alberta Cancer Board (ACB) between December 1995 to April 2000. To record the early market experience with capecitabine use in MBC.
Methods. Treatment of MBC with a marketed taxane between December 1995 and April 2000 was reviewed. Patients were included if they were within treatment guidelines of the Alberta Cancer Board Outpatient Cancer Drug Benefit Program, and excluded if they were currently on a taxane, treated outside guidelines, or died before receiving a third-line agent. Pre- and postcapecitabine availability cohorts were used to compare prescribing patterns.
Results. Before the availability of capecitabine, vinorelbine was the most prescribed third-line chemotherapy (18.8%). After its availability, cape-citabine was the most prescribed third-line chemo-therapy (44.9%). Patients experienced, in order of decreasing frequency, hand-foot syndrome, diarrhea, and nausea as side effects of capecitabine. The majority of dose changes to capecitabine were side effect-related. The first dose was decreased on average by 24.2%, and the sum of the first and second dose adjustments averaged 44.2%. For patients who have discontinued capecitabine, 66.7% were due to disease-related reasons.
Conclusion. At the ACB, capecitabine is the current primary choice of third-line chemotherapy. During early experience with its usage, capecitabine was well tolerated and toxicity was adequately managed by dose adjustments. J Oncol Pharm Practice (2001) 6, 138-145.
O’Shaughnessy J.Salvage chemotherapy for metastatic breast cancer. Cancer Control J Sep/Oct 1999 (suppl.) Available at: http://www.moffitt.usf.edu/pubs/ccj/v6s2/article5.htm (accessed July 6, 2000).
2.
McLachlan SA, Pintilie M, Tannock IF.Third line chemotherapy in patients with metastatic breast cancer: an evaluation of quality of life and cost. Breast Cancer Res Treat. 1999;54:213-223 Apr.
3.
Fornier M, Munster P, Seidman AD.Update on the management of advanced breast cancer. Oncology (Huntington). 1999;13:647-658 May; discussion 660, 663-664. Review.
4.
Hoffmann-La Roche Inc. ® Product Monograph. Nutley, NJ; 2000.
5.
Adeloff MD.Vinorelbine (Navelbine) in the treatment of breast cancer: a summary. Semin Oncol. 1995;22 (2Suppl.5):1-4 Apr; discussion 41-44.
6.
Bertsch LA, Donaldson G.Quality of life analyses from vinorelbine (Navelbine) clinical trials of women with metastatic breast cancer. Semin Oncol. 1995;22 (2Suppl.5):45-53 April; discussion 53-54.
7.
Valgus JM.Emerging therapies for breast cancer. Cancer Pract. 1999;7:100-103 Mar/Apr.
8.
Blum JL, Jones SE, Buzdar AU.Multicenter phase II study of capecitabine in paclitaxel-refractory metastatic breast cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1999;17:485-493.
9.
Mrozek-Orlowski ME, Frye DK, Sanborn HM.Capecitabine nursing implications of a new oral chemo-therapeutic agent. Oncol Nurs Forum. 1999;26:753-761.
10.
Silberman G, Gupta S, Berkowitz N, et al. Cost-effectiveness of capecitabine, continuous infusion 5- FU, gemcitabine and vinorelbine in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. ASCO Online. 1999. Available at: http://www.asco.org/prof/me/html/99abstracts/hsr/m_1629.htm (accessed July 6, 2000).
11.
O’Shaughnessy J, Blum J. A retrospective evaluation of the impact of dose reduction in patients treated with ® (capecitabine). ASCO Online. 2000. Available at: http://www.asco.org/prof/me/html/00abstracts/bc/m_400.htm (accessed July 6, 2000).
